INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in the Registry of the Court
on 08 May 2017
Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations
(India vs. Pakistan) 08 May 2017
APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ................. ..........................2..........
II. Facts ........... ............. ...... ... ... ............4................
III. Jurisdiction of the Court ..............................13..
IV. The Vienna Convention ........................ ....... ...... 16
V. The Claims of India ............ ...... ...................23....
VI. Relief ......... .......... .... .......... ..... ....... ............... .....29
VII. List of Annexes ....... ........ .......................... ....33To: Mr. Philippe Couvreur,
Registrar,
International Court of Justice,
Peace Palace,
The Hague,
Netherlands.
Sir ,
On behalf of the Republic of India, and in accordance
with Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice (hereinafter "Court") and
Article 38 of the Rules of the Court, read along with Article 1
of the Optional Protocol concerntng the Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes done at Vienna on 24 April 1963, I
respectfully submit this Application instituting proceedings
on behalf of and in the name of the Republic of India against
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for egregious violations of
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (the
"Vienna Convention") by Pakistan in the matter of the
detention and trial of an Indian National, Mr. Kulbhushan
Sudhir Jadhav which has resulted finally on 10 April 2017 in
a death sentence being awarded to the said Indian National.
The dispute being raised arises out of the interpretation and
the application of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular
1Relations and lies within the compulsory jurisdiction of this
Court as provided in Article 1 of the Optional Protocol
Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes .
1 am also enclosing a request for urgent provisional
measures pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court
and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court. The request
for provisional measures seeks immediate orders as the
Indian national who was tried by a military court has been
sentenced to death, and his fate is uncertain due to lack of
information and continued deniai of consular access. The
present proceedings relate to the violation of the Vienna
Convention in relation to the arrest and trial of the lndian
national Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav. India apprehends
that although an appellate remedy is ostensibly available, it
may be quickly exhausted in the same farcical manner in
which his trial has been rushed through, and he could be
executed summarily. India has no ether legal recourse by
which it could secure the interests of this Indian National
except by way of the present proceedings.
I.INTRODUCTION
1) The authorities of Pakistan allegedly arrested,
detained, tried , convicted and sentenced to death an
Indian National Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, and
he is currently under a death sentence being held in
2 Pakistan. The competent authorities of Pakistan,
despite repeated requests by India beginning March
2016 have not granted consular access . Pakistan has,
thus, been in egregious violation of its obligations
under sub-articles (a) (b) and (c) of Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the 1963 Vienna Convention.
2) These violations have prevented India from
exercising its rights under the Vienna Convention and
have also deprived the Indian National of the protection
accorded under the Vienna Convention and violated his
rights under the Vienna Convention. This Application is
being brought by India on its own behalf to seek relief
in relation to violation of its rights, as well as on behalf
of its citizen who has been seriously prejudiced and
now faces a death sentence, in a process that
deliberately and consciously denied to him the rights
under Article 36 (1) (b) of the Vienna Convention.
3) The ICJ has held that the rule on exhaustion of
local remedies is not applicable when a State invokes
direct violation of its rights. In such cases, the State is
not bound to wait until domestic proceedings have been
completed by its injured national. Nor is the exhaustion
of local remedies a compulsory requirement if the
respondent State itself has failed to inform the persan
3 concerned about available remedies in consonance with
its obligations under international law. (Arrest
Warrants case; La Grand case quoted in "The Statute of
the Intemational Court of Justice- A commentary",
Edited by Zimmerman , Tomuschat & Olliers Frahm
2005, Page 648) . In view of the above, India IS
competent to bring this Application before the Court .
II. FACTS.
4) An Indian national (Kulbhushan Sudhir J adhav)
was allegedly arrested on March 3, 20 16.
5) On 25 March 2016, India was informed of this
alleged arrest wh en the Foreign Secretary, Pakistan
raised the matter with the Indian High Commission er in
Islamabad. On that very day , India sought consular
access to the said individual at the earliest.
6) The request did not evoke any response. Thus, on
30 March 2016 , India sent a reminder reiterating its
request for consular access to the individual at the
earliest. Thirteen more reminders were sent by India on
6 May 2016, 10 June 2016, 11 July 2016, 26 July
2016 , 22 August 2016 , 3 November 2016, 19 December
2016, 3 February 2017, 3 March 2017, 31 March 2017,
4 10 April 20 17, 14 April 20 17 and 19 April 20 17 (Annex
1). All the se requests feil on deaf ears.
7) Almost a year after India's first request for consular
access, on 23 January, 2017 India received a request
(Annex 2) from Pakistan for assistance in investigation
of what was described as "FIR No. 6 of 20 16". Und er the
Pakistan Code of Criminal Procedure, the expression
"FIR" is used as an acronym for the first information
report which is registered after the police cornes to
know of the commission of a crime . This was the
criminal complaint that was registered against the
Indian National apparently on 8 April 2016 . What is
significant is that this letter acknowledged that this
"FIR" had been registered against "an Indian national",
bence confirming the nationality of the individual.
8) Thus, the nationality of the arrested person, who
was undergoing trial and that too in a military court
was not in dispute or doubt. The international
obligation to allow consular access under Article 36 of
the Vienna Convention had admittedly been breached
by Pakistan. It is obvious that even the right of Mr.
Jadhav to seek and obtain consular access had been
breached by Pakistan.
59) On February 3, 2017 ln dia protested through a
demarche against the continued deniai of consular
access despite the fact that his Indian nationality had
been affirmed by Pakistan . The letter from Pakistan
seeking assistance referred to in para 7 above also
established that there was a purported confession by
him which was the basis or at least a significant part of
the case against him . India, therefore, raised the
concern of his safety pointing out that
((questions about his treatment in Pakistan 's
custody continue to mount, given especially his
coerced purported confession, and the
circumstances of his presence in Pakistan
remain unexplained. "
10) On March 3, 2017 ln dia reminded Pakistan of its
various requests including its demarche of February 3,
2017 and again requested consular access.
11) lndia received another note verbale dated 21 March
2017 (Annex 3) from Pakistan . In this, Pakistan stated
th at,
((the case for the consular access to the Indian
national ...shall be considered in the light of
Indian side's response to Pakistan's request for
6 assistance in investigation process and early
dispensation of justice".
12) The foregoing facts of the case including the Note
Verbale of 21 March 20 17 establishes that Pakistan
had been acting in brazen violation of its obligations
under the Vienna Convention, as this Convention does
not include any exceptions in respect of consular
access rights recognised in Article 36. The linking of
assistance in the investigation process to the grant of
consular access was by itself a serious violation of the
Vienna Convention.
13) India responded to this note verbale on March 31,
2017 pointing out that,
"consular access to Mr. Jadhav would be an
essential pre -requisite in arder to verify the facts
and understand the circumstances of his
presence in Pakistan."
India had information that he had been kidnapped from
Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring
from the Indian Navy, and was then shown to have
been arrested in Baluchistan. These matters required
verification , the first step for which would be consular
access.
714) A press release issued by Inter Services Public
Relations on 10 April 2017, regarding Mr. Jadhav
conveyed that,
"The spy has been tried through Field General
Court Martial (FGCM) under Pakistan Army Act
and awarded death sentence. Today COAS,
Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa has confirmed his
dea th sentence awarded by FGCM." (Annex 4)
15) India received on 10 April, 2017 yet another note
verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad
conveying that consular access shall be considered in
the light of India's response to Pakistan 's request
(Annex 5) for assistance in the investigation process.
16) India responded to this on 10 April, 20 17 itself
painting out that this offer was being reiterated after
the death sentence bad been confirmed - the
information of which was given in a press briefing by
Pakistan . India stated that this offer ((underlines the
farcical nature of the proceedings and so-called trial by a
Pakistan military court martial" . India pointed out that
despite its repeated requests, consular access bad not
been allowed .
817) A press statement was made by the Adviser to the
Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affairs on 14
April 2017 (Annex 6). This press statement establishes
the following facts:
a) After his alleged arrest, a "confessional video
statement" was recorded on March 25, 2016. The
FIR was, however, registered only on April 8, 2016.
b) The accused was interrogated in May 2016, and in
July 2016 , a confessional statement by the accused
was recorded before a magistrate.
c) The court martial recorded the summary of
evidence on 24 September 2016, and in four
proceedings culminating on 12 February 2017, the
trial was over.
d) In the course of the trial, the accused "was allowed
to ask questions from the witnesses", and "a law
qualified field officer was provided to defend him
throughout the court proceedings".
18) The last proceeding in the case was, as per this
statement, on 12 February 2017. It is obvious that by
21 st March 20 17, even the conditional consular access
[to be gran ted post arrest, and in the course of the
Trial] that was offered by Pakistan bad in any event
became meaningless as the Trial stood concluded.
919) India states that these facts establish beyond any
shadow of doubt that in conducting the trial without
informing the accused of his rights under the Vienna
Convention and granting consular access to India,
Pakistan has conducted itself in a manner that
constitutes an egreg1ous violation of the Vienna
Convention .
In a briefing on 17 April 20 17, on behalf of the
Government of Pakistan, the authorised spokesperson
said th at the Indian National is not eligible for consular
access nor will he be granted consular access. (Annex
7). It is clear, th at the provisions of the Vienna
Convention have been violated, and the ongoing
conduct of Pakistan continues to be in defiance of the
provisions of the Convention .
20) On 19th April, India yet again handed over a note
verbale (see Annex-1) to Pakistan [through its High
Commission in New Delhi] seeking copies of the charge
sheet, proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, the
summary of evidence and the judgment. In addition to
seeking [once again] consular access, it also asked
Pakistan to:
a) Share the procedure for the appeal,
10 b) Facilitate the appointment of a defence lawyer, and
facilitate the contact with the High Commission of
India in Islamabad,
c) Provide certified copies of medical reports,
d) Issue visas to the family of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir
Jadhav to visit Pakistan.
21) In arder to pursue legal remedies available un der
the Pakistan Army Act 1952 , howsoever circumscribed
they may prove to be , the parents of Mr. Jadhav applied
for Pakistani visas on 25 April 2017. This application
was made through the offices of the Ministry of
External Affairs of the Union of India . No response on
these applications has been received by them till date.
22) The family of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, has
filed an appeal under Section 133 (B) and a petition to
the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131
of the Pakistan Army Act 1952. The appeal and the
petition was handed over by the Indian High
Commissioner in Islamabad to Pakistan's Foreign
Secretary in Islamabad on 26 April 2017. During this
meeting, the representatives of India once again sought
consular access to Mr. Jadhav (see Annex-1). This
appeal has been filed based on information available in
public domain, as no particulars of the charges , the
11 evidence or the verdict have been provided by Pakistan .
Without consular access and the access to all this
information, there can be no effective appeal and even
the right to appeal would be as farcical as the Trial .
23) The External Affairs Minister of India wrote a letter
to the Advisor to the Pakistan Prime Minister on
Foreign Affairs on 27 April 2017 (Annex 8) in which she
reiterated the requests for certified copies of the charge
sheet against Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav,
proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, the summary of
evidence in the case, the judgement, appointment of a
defence lawyer and his contact details and certified
copy of medical report of Mr. Jadhav . She also
reiterated the requested for the visa for the parents of
Mr Jadhav. She sought the persona! intervention of the
Advisor in the matter. No response has been received
to this missive .
24) India, therefore, submits that a case is made out of
violation of Treaty rights and India therefore seeks to
apply to this Court for appropriate relief including by
way of restitution.
12 III. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
25) Article 36 (1) of the Statu te of the Court conf ers
upon this Court the jurisdiction to decide ((all matters
specially provided for... in treaties and conventions in
force''.
26) India and Pakistan are members of the United
Nations and thus ipso facto parties to the Statute of the
International Court of Justice. They are also parties to
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its
Optional Protocol concerning Compulsory Settlement of
Disputes. Both States have accepted the Convention
and the Optional Protocol without any reservation.
27) Article 1of the Optional Protocol provides that,
((Disputes arising out of the interpretation or
application of the Convention shall lie within the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court
of Justice and may accordingly be brought before
the Court by an application made by any party
to the dispute being a Party to the present
Protocol".
28) lndia brings this case against Pakistan before the
Court for violation of the Vienna Convention on
13 Consular Relations based on the jurisdiction of the
Court under Article 36 , paragraph 1 of the Statute of
the Court and Article I of the Optional Protocol on
Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
29) Both India and Pakistan have also accepted the
Compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under paragraph
2 of Article 36 of the Statute subject to declarations in
which "they recognise as compulsory ipso facto and
without special agreement, in relation to any other state
accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the
Court...." in legal disputes relating to, amongst other
things, interpretation of treaties or questions of
international law.
30) However, India is invoking the jurisdiction of the
Court under Paragraph 1 of Article 36 where treaties or
conventions especially provide for the jurisdiction of the
Court. In such cases, the declarations made by the
parties under paragraph 2 of Article 36-or any
reservations in such declarations are not applicable.
31) This issue is no longer res integra . In the Case
Concerning Border and Transborder Armed Actions
(Nicaragua v Honduras), this Court came to the
conclusion that the Pact of Bogota created jurisdiction
14 independent of the declarations of compulsory
jurisdiction as may have been made under Article 36 ,
paragraph 2. (I.C.J . Repo rts 1988 , para 41).
32) In "the Appeal Relati ng to the jurisdiction of the
ICAO Council" , (India v. Pakistan), apart from
questioning the competence of the Court under Article
84 of the Chicago Convention and Article II, Section 2,
of the Transit Agreement (called "the: jurisdictional
clauses of the Treaties "), Pakistan also relied on India's
reservation to her acceptance of the Court's compulsory
Jurisdiction under paragraph 2 of Article 36. The Court
held that:
"the various objections made to the competence
of the Court cannat be sustained , whether they
are based on the alleged inapplicability of the
Treaties as such , or of their jurisdictional
clauses. Since therefore the Court is invested
with jurisdiction under those clauses and , in
consequence (see paragraphs 14-16 above},
under Article 36, paragraph 1, and under Article
37, of its Statute , it becomes irrelevant to
consider the objections to other possible bases of
jurisdiction ". (ICJ Reports 1972 , para 25)
1533) In the La Grand case (Germany v. United States of
America), Judgment , ICJ Reports 2001, p.466, this Court
accepted - as it was not a matter put in issue - that the
application filed by the Federal Republic of Germany for
violation of the Vienna Convention was based on the
jurisdiction of the Court un der Article 36, paragraph 1,
of the Statute of the Court and on Article I of the
Optional Protocol. Similarly, in the Avena case (Mexico
v. United States of America}, Judgment, ICJ Reports
2004, p.l2, this Court noted in its judgement that
Mexico based the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36,
paragraph 1, of the Statu te of the Court and on Article I
of the Optional Protocol concerning the compulsory
settlement of disputes. The jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain applications for relief in cases of breach of the
Vienna Convention thus is not in doubt.
IV. THE VIENNA CONVENTION
34) Article 36 of the Vienna Convention was negotiated
and adopted by the States, to set up amongst ether
things standards of conduct through an Intemational
Convention on Consular Relations, particularly
concerning communication and contact with nationals
of the Sending State which would contribute to the
development of friendly relations amongst nations.
16 Article 36 of the Convention specifically confers rights
upon the States under sub-articles (a) and (c) of Article
36, paragraph 1, and confers rights upon nationals of
States, arrested, detained or put on trial in another
State.
35) The prov1s1ons of Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention were first interpreted by this Court in the
La Grand case. This Court held,
"Article 36) paragraph 1) establishes an
interrelated regime designed to facilitate the
implementation of the system of consular
protection. It begins with the basic principles
goveming consular protection)· the right of
communication and access (Article 36) para 1
(a)). This clause is followed by the provision
which spells out the modalities of consular
notification (Article 36) para 1 (b)). Finally Article
36) paragraph 1 (c)) sets out the measures
consular officers may take in rendering consular
assistance to their nationals in the custody of the
receiving State. ))(ICJ Reports 1988, paragraph
74)
1736) In the Avena case , this Court was agatn called
upon to interpret Article 36. Itheld that
"Article 36 paragraph 1 (b) contains three
separate but interrelated elements: the right of
the individual concemed to be informed without
delay of his rights under Article 36 para 1 (b).;
the right of the consular post to be notified
without delay of the individual's detention , ifhe
so requests ; and the obligation of the receiving
State to forward without delay any
communication addressed to the consular post
by the detained persan. " (ICJ Reports 2004,
para 61)
37) The facts narrated In the prevtous section
establish that Pakistan had failed to inform the accused
of his rights. The conduct of Pakistan, including at one
time a suggestion that the Indian national was not
entitled to any rights, also establishes that the accused
was denied his consular access rights under Article 36,
paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention .
38) India was informed of the detention of the Indian
national much after his detention. India sought
consular access incessantl y. Considerably late in the
18 day - after the trial had been concluded - Pakistan put
a condition that India first accedes to its request for
investigation in India. Such a condition is in violation of
the Vienna Convention. Even this conditional offer
came at a time when the trial had already been
concluded.
39) It is obvious from the facts, which are 1n the
present case indisputable, that Pakistan has denied
India consular rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a)
and (c), of the Vienna Convention.
40) The rights conferred by Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention are sacrosanct . These rights are also
enforceable as held by this Court in the Avena case in
paragraph 40, th at
"violations of the rights of the individual under
Article 36 may entail a violation of the rights of
the sending State, and that violation of the rights
of the latter may entail a violation ofthe rights of
the individual."
On this basis, this Court held that the sending State (in
that case Mexico) could submit a claim in its own name
and request the Court to rule on the violation of rights
which it claimed to have suffered both directly and
19 through the violation of the individual rights conferred
on Mexican nationals .
41) Where there is a violation of a right un der the
Convention, this Court would have the power and the
jurisdiction to provide suitable relief including a relief
by way of restitution.
42) As explained in greater detail in the section under
relief, in the present case , this Court would have the
jurisdiction to, and the facts of the case demand that
this Court does, set aside the conviction of the Indian
National. Alternatively , this Court may , as a measure of
restitution, direct Pakistan to take such steps as may
be necessary to set aside the conviction of the accused
Indian National. This Court may also direct a fresh
investigation, after consular access is provided, and in
the circumstances of this case also direct Pakistan to
conduct the trial under their ordinary judicial system .
43) Pakistan has, in a press briefing on April 20, 2017
(Annex 9), referred to a bilateral agreement on consular
access between India and Pakistan , concluded in 2008
(Annex 10) and suggested that the matter of consular
access between the two countries is exhaustively dealt
with in this bilateral agreement.
2044) This argument lacks merit both because of the
express provisions of the Vienna Convention, as well as
the plain language of the Agreement On Consular
Access signed between the two countries on 21 May
2008.
45) In the Agreement , which was entered into for
''furthering the objective of humane treatment of
nationals of either country arrested, detained or
imprisoned in the other country ...." the two signatory
States, India and Pakistan , agreed to certain measures.
They included release and repatriation of persons
within one month of confirmation of their national
status and completion of sentences . The Agreement
recognised that in case of arrest , detention or sen tence
made on political or security grounds, each side may
examine the case on its own merits , and that in special
cases which call for or require compassionate and
humanitarian considerations, each side may exercise
its discretion subject to its laws and regulations to
allow early release and repatriation of persons. India is
not seeking reinforcement of this Agreement nor is it
basing its claim on an y rights or obligations under it.
2146) India's claim is based solely upon the Vienna
Convention. Article 73 of the Vienna Convention
recognises that there may be other international
agreements in force as between the parties, and that
nothing in the Convention "shall preclude States from
concluding international agreements confirming or
supplementing or extending or amplifying the provisions
thereoj.
47) The existence of a bilateral agreement, sorne of the
provisions of which may appear to supplement or
amplify the provisions of the Vienna Convention is thus
irrelevant to an assertion of rights of consular access
under the Vienna Convention. This is also consistent
with Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties which recognises the principle that two or
more parties could modify the terms of the Treaty as
long as the Treaty permits such modification or at least
does not prohibit such modification, and that any such
modification cannat relate to a provision, the derogation
from which is incompatible with the effective execution
of the abject and purpose of the Treaty as a whole.
48) The Vienna Convention creates specifie rights 1n
favour of States and in favour of the nationals of
Sending States in relation to consular access - and
22 creates corresponding obligations upon Receiving
States that arrest, detain or try and sentence nationals
of other member States. Bilateral treaties which create
obligations can only supplement the provisions of the
Vienna Convention and cannot modify these rights
and corresponding obligations which form the object
and purpose of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.
V. THE CLAIMS OF INDIA
49) The Government of India claims that under Article
36 of the Vienna Convention , Pakistan was under an
international legal obligation to India, a party to the
Convention, to comply with the rights of consular
access under sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph 1
of Article 36. Pakistan was also under an obligation
under international law and the Vienna Convention to
inform the Indian National of his rights under
paragraph (b) of Article 36 (1).
50) Despite persistent and repeated requests by India,
Pakistan has brazenly refused consular access until
March 2017 - by whi ch time the trial was concluded .
This trial has been concluded in violation of the rights
under the Vienna Convention and stands vitiated. That
is more so for the reason that the trial has been
23 conducted not in accordance with the general law
applicable to criminal trials in the regular courts, but
has been conducted by way of a military court martial.
These trials under the law applicable to them are
summary in nature. And indisputably, a confession by
the accused while in Pakistani custody has been taken
into account in the course of the trial - which
confession was recorded after India had sought
consular access.
51) Pursuant to Article 36 , sub-paragraph 1 (b) of the
Vienna Convention, Pakistan is under the international
legal obligation to the Indian National to allow him
consular access and also the right to receive assistance
from India in the ongoing proceedings.
52) Pakistan continues to deny consular access to the
Indian National. It is not even known wh ether an
appeal hÇts been filed by Mr. Jadhav, and if filed has
already been heard. Pakistan steadfastly refuses to
share any information about the accused.
53) The trial had been conducted under the Pakistan
Army Act, 1952 . The accused, it appears from the
statement of 14 April 2017 , was tried by a Field General
Court Martial. While the rules of evidence are the same
24 as those prevalent 1n criminal courts, the personnel
who manned the court martial are three military
officers. The decision of the court martial, under
Section 105, is by an absolute majority of votes, and in
the event death sentence is to be awarded it has to be
unan1mous.
54) Section 84 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 conf ers
the power to convene a Field General Court -Martial
upon an officer empowered in this behalf by an arder of
the Federal Government or of the Chief of Army staff.
The confirmation of a death sentence awarded in a
Field General Court-Martial is by the convening officer
or by an authority superior to him. The only
information available in the present case as to the state
of play, is what was in the press statement by the
Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan which said
that the accused was tried by a Field General Court
Martial under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act,
1952 . Section 59 extends the Army Act in its
application to persans who 1n or 'beyond Pakistan
commit any ((civil offence". It did not state the
designation of the convening officer or the officer who
"endorsed" the sentence on 10 April 20 17.
2555) A petition to the Federal Government is provided
under Section 131. Under Section 133B, the Court of
Appeal is to consist, in cases of award of death
sentence after 1992, of the Chief of Army Staff or one or
more of the officers designated by him in this behalf
and presided by an officer not below the rank of
Brigadier in the case of a Field General Court-Martial
as in this case . The decision of the Court of Appeal is
final and cannat be called in question before any court
or other authority.
56) The mother of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav filed
an appeal under Section 133 (B) and a petition to the
Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131 of
the Pakistan Army Act 1952. The appeal and the
petition were handed over to the Pakistan Government
by the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad on April
26, 2017.
57) ln the present case, lndia submits that even if, an
appeal is available under the Statute, it is an illusory
remedy. Sorne of the circumstances th at establish th at
this remedy is worthless in the present case are as
follows:
a) The death sentence stands confirmed by the Chief
of Army Staff. An appeal before a Tribunal presided
26 over by him or officers' junior to him would be an
appeal from Caesar to Caesar. A news report of
18thApril 2017 in the Dawn states that an appeal
process is under way and the appellate Tribunal
would be constituted headed by a two star general.
The spokesperson is quoted as having said that he
did not see any chance of the verdict being
overturned.
b) The Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs
issued a statement on 14 April 2017 ( see Annex 6)
in which he asserted that
"all political parties are unantmous that the
award of death penalty after due process and
overwhelming evidence to a foreign spy, who
was not only carrying out subversive activities
in Pakistan but actually promoting terrorism, is
the correct decision. Second , the whole nation
is solidly united against any threat to
Pakistan 's security".
The official spokesperson for the Government in a
press briefing on 17 April 2017 mentioned that the
process will move ahead as per law and will go to
the appellate court - it did not clarify whether an
appeal had already been filed . He added
((Kulbhushan was sentenced on undeniable
27 evidence, ifquestioned on any forum, the Pakistan
Army will defend their case with all the resources in
light of the undeniable evidence''. (see Annex 7)
c) In a case that has created so much controversy,
there is more than a reasonable apprehension that
the Court of Appeal presided over by a two star
general of the Army [who is subordinate to the
Chief of Army Staff who has confirmed the death
sentence]- will not act independently, fairly and
impartially to the standards of due process
recognised in International law. There can be no
faith or confidence in such a remedy, particularly
in the facts and circumstances of the present case .
d) Further, when the Government of Pakistan has
publicly taken such a position, it defies credulity to
believe that a Court of Appeal constituted under
the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 will be so independent
and free from pressures so as to constitute a real
and effective remedy.
e) Even in the course of the appeal, Pakistan has
clearly refused consular access.
f) A news report [Dawn Newspaper, 15 April 2017]
(Annex 11 )in Pakistan newspapers suggests that
the Lahore High Court Bar Association passed a
resolution on 14 April 2017 warning lawyers
against accepting the brief of convicted ((Indian spy
28 Kulbhushan Jadhav". The news report suggested
that the Bar Association bad decided to cancel the
membership of the lawyer(s) found pursuing an
appeal on behalf of this convict in a military court.
Thus in all likelihood , even in appeal Mr. Jadhav
will not be able to avail of the assistance of a
lawyer. Pakistan bas not responded to India's
request to facilitate the appointment of a defence
lawyer.
VI. RELIEF
58) India submits that the breach of the Vienna
Convention is admitted in the note verbale by Pakistan
on 21 March 20 17, which for the first time stated that
Pakistan would consider consular access depending on
India's response to the request for assistance in the
investigation. It reiterated this position in its note
verbale of 1 Qth April 2017. The press briefing by the
official spokesperson of the Government, on 17 April
20 17, again asserted the Pakistan position that the
Indian National was not entitled to consular access .
59) India submits that this Court bas the power to take
all such steps and issue all such directions as may be
necessary, for as held in the Avena case,
29 ''it is a principle of international law that the
breach of an engagement involves an obligation
to make reparation in an adequate form (Factory
at Chorzow, Jurisdiction, 1927, PCIJ, Series A,
No.9, p.21)JJ(ICJ Reports 2004, p.59, para . 119) .
This Court also held that where obligations accepted
by the parties to the Vienna Convention include
commitments as to the conduct of their municipal
courts in relation to nationals of other parties, this
Court had jurisdiction to examine the conduct of the
municipal courts and the actions of such courts in the
light of international law to ascertain whether there had
been any breaches of the Convention. (Ibid, Para 28).
India, therefore, submits that this Court has the power
and the jurisdiction to mould the relief, to the facts of
the present case, to ensure that this death sentence
which has been awarded by a military court, in brazen
defiance of the consular rights under Article 36 of the
Vienna Convention and due process set at nought. This
could be achieved by directing Pakistan - to take steps
to annul the decision , and to direct Pakistan not to act
on this sentence and conviction, and to direct the
release of the convicted Indian national forthwith.
3060) In the circumstances, India seeks the following
reliefs :
(1) A relief by way of immediate suspension of the
sentence of death awarded to the accused.
(2) A relief by way of restitution in interregnum
by declaring that the sentence of the military court
arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna
Convention rights under Article 36, particularly
Article 36 paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of
elementary human rights of an accused which are
also to be given effect as mandated under Article
14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is violative of international law and
the provisions of the Vienna Convention, and
(3) Restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the
sentence awarded by the military court, and
directing it to take steps to annul the decision of
the military court as may be available to it under
the law in Pakistan.
(4) If Pakistan is unable to annul the decision,
then this Court to declare the decision illegal being
violative of international law and treaty rights and
restrain Pakistan from acting in violation of the
Vienna Convention and international law by giving
effect to the sentence or the conviction in any
31 manner, and directiit to relethe convicted
Indian National forthwith.
61) The Republic of India reserves its right to amend
or supplementhis Applicatanytimein futurand
requestthe Court to indiprovisionameasuresof
protectioas set forth in the separequestfiled
along with this Application .
08 May 2017
/ ~\\ \ 4
(Dr. DeepaM ~al)
Joint Secretary
Ministry of External Affairs
Governmen t of India
32List of Annexes
Annex 1 Notes Verbale issued by India on 25 March
2016, 30 March 2016, May 6, 2016, June
10, 2016, July 11, 2016, Jul y 26, 2016,
August 22, 2016, November 3, 2016,
December 19, 2016, 3 February 2017 , 3
March 2017, 31 March 2017, 10 April 2017,
14 April 20 17, 19 April 20 17 and 26 April
2017.
Annex 2 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 23
January 2017 (without attachment)
Annex 3 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 21
March 2017
Annex 4 Press Release issued by Inter Services
Public Relations on 10 April 2017
Annex 5 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 10 April
2017
Annex 6 Press Statement made by the Adviser to the
Prime Minis ter of Pakistan on 14 April 20 17
Annex 7 Briefing by Authorised Spokesperson of the
Government of Pakistan on 17 April 2017
Annex 8 Letter from EAM to Adviser to the Pakistan
Prime Minis ter on Foreign Affairs on 27
April 20 17
Annex 9 Press Briefing of Government of Pakistan on
20 April 2017
Annex 10 India Pakistan Agreement on Consular
Access of 21 May 2008
Annex 11 Copy of news report in Dawn Newspaper of
15 April 2017
33ANNEX 1No. ISU1 03/1/2016
The H1gh CommiSSIOn of lnd 1a to F>1<s1tan presents 1ts compliments to the
rvhw~t orFyoreiqn Affau s of tlH; l$lélrniC Republ1c of Pak1stan and has the honour1o
refer to the purportcd nrrest of dimJ1<'rn Batuch1Sié1 1he rnatter WdS ra1sed todu:t..y
Pak1stan s Fore1gn Secretary \Niththe ln(hi-lnH1gComtni5Sioner m Islamabad
lnlhts contexi th1::>tl1gh Commi SSIOnrequests the Mm,stty of 01e1gn Affatrs to
kmdly prov tdeConsular Access to the sa1dmdJvtdual. at theear11est
TlleH1gh Comrr11:-,s1onof tnd1n to Paktstan av<llis •!self of th'S opportumty to
fé'lew to the Mi•Hstry nf ~-o,e; '\anr':\ of thelsl<~m ft~e.buhc of Pak1slan tt->e
assurances of 1tsh1ghcst cons1dera l•on
Islamabad , 25 March 2016
Ministry of Foreign Affa1rs
(Kind attention : Mr . Hafiz Afaq Ahmad , Oirector(lndia)]
Government of th e lslamicRepublic of Pak istan
Islamabad
. -
~·.j,.~~t..;. .,'
~ ....
1 : ,
No.ISL/L03/L4/20 16
The Htgh Commission of lncha 1.0Pakis ran prest:nts il s cornpllnwnt s lo 1
/
the Minisu-y of P 'ore1gn Affatr s, Govcrnmcnt of the ls lamlc Rcpubl1c of l'clktstan
~ll u rlh er toits note verbole No. ISL/ 103 / l / 2016 dated Marc:.h 25, 2ll l(,
!
regardmg the purported a rrest of a n lndtan na ltonal in Baluchtslh rr~s.the.
honour to rciterale ou r requ esl to the csteem cd MinJst ry to pnlv ·id<' rtH1~~tllJt 1
.1ccess LO th<' satd indiv idual at the e3r!Jr. st
ç
The l ligh Commtssi on of lndia to Pakistan ava1ls ilself ofLI1S oppon Llllity r
to rc new lO the Mini stry of Foreign Affairs, Government of th e Jslarnic 1-<cp~tblic
of Pal<1slan, Lbe ass1..n·ances of llsllighest conside ration. i
1
0~
Jsla nt::tbnd, Ma rch 30, '20 16
Nlinislry of Pore ign Affair s
[Kind attention : Dircctor Gen eral (South Asia)]
Govern men l of the 1-slami c RepulJii c of Pakistan
Islamabad
1
• 1 ~1• ) • 1
!
.~..r /
il:'tliT~r"Ùïr~J1lïif.>.ïfè."
tf!CCOi\flvtlHJOF"i~D!.
I~i.\'\B •\H
No.ISL/103/14/2016
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan presents its complements
to the Ministryf Foreign Affairs, Government of the lslamic Republic of
Pakistan and has the honor to refer to its Note Verbales No. ·
ISL/103/1/2016 dated March 25, 2016 and No. ISL/103/14/2016 dated
March 30, 2016 regarding the purported arresbf an lndian national in
Baluchistan.
This Mission reiterates its request to the esteemed Mini.stry to provide
Consular Access to the said individual at the earliest.
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan avails itself of this
opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the
lslamic Republic of Pakistan the assurances of its highest consideration.
Islamabad , May 06, 2016
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
[Kind attention: Mr. Hafiz Afaq Ahmad, Director (lndia}]
Govern ment of the Islamie Republic of Pakistan
Islamabad
G-5. DiplomatieEnclave. [slamabad5-J-2X3-X2X'T..i·
fa OCl95-1-2fU-1290, 282~3-251 .]Gl! COi<ü\.H"-.:ciOF it>iDL.
!S.L.~:.fABAD
No.ISU103J1412016
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan presents its
compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the lslamic
Republic of Pakistan, and has the honour to refer to its earlier Notes
Verbale No.ISU103/1/2016 dated March 25, 2016, No. ISL/103/14/2016
dated March 30, 2016 and May 06, 2016 regarding purported arrest of
an lndian national viz. Kulbhushan Jadhav in Baluchistan.
The Mission reiterates its request to the esteemed Ministry to
provide Consular Access to the said individual at the eartiest. ltis
reiterated that safety, security and weil being of ali lndian and believed
to-be lndian prisoners, may please also be ensured till they are in
Pakistc!mijails.
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan avails itself of this
opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of
the lslamic Republic of Pakistan, ~he assurances of its hi hest
consideration .
June 10, 2016
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
{Kind Attention: Director (lndia}}, ~ L.
Government of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan,
Islamabad. ...
' i"l ·r·
No.ISL/1 03/14/2016
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan presents its
compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Government of the lslamic
Republic of Pakistan, and has the honour to refer to its earlier Notes
Verbale No.ISL/103/1/2016 dated March 25, 2016, No. ISL/103/14/2016
dated March 30, 2016, May 06, 2016 and June 10, 2016 regarding
purported arrest of an lndian national viz. Kulbhushan Jadhav in
Baluchistan .
The Mission reiterates its request to the esteemed Ministry to
provide Consular Access to the said individual at the earliest. lt is
reiterated that safety, security and weil being of ali lndian and believed
to-be lndian prisoners, may please also be ensured till they are in
Pakistani jails.
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan avails itself of this
opportunity to re'new to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Governm ent of
the lslamic Republic of Pakistan, the assurances of its higl"test
consideration .
~
Islamabad
July 11, 2016
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
{Kind Attention: Director (lndia)},
Government of the Islamie Republic of Pakistan,
Islamabad.
-·---,..-·---•--• -· -----•______ ..·-·~,;__ ..-.- -• - ··..··•••-•--"'r-.·--·-··-·,,._.__,..
1 ~:J •; ...·•! y:•. "'1.i#.
r·} l·i:·)l\-1:\'!i >:•!!Hn·ll.t,',
i~~..'J. l~'.'·l1.1-\
i
No. ISL/ J03/ J4/2016
The Hi gh Commiss ion of India Lo Pakist an presents ils compliments w
th e Mi11istry of Foreign Affa ir s,Governmenl of Lhe lsl' n Jv ~fJ'llJll uf
Pél-istun a nd fu rihcr to ils notes uerbole evt?n numhcr rlatecl f\1,111'1!,;;),
March 30 & May 06, 2016 regurdmg Ll1e purportecl a rr es <lia11 ln d1an
na tional, l<ulbllushan J adav, in Baluch istan.
2. The Miss ion reitero.tes its rcquest to Lhe es teemed Ministr y to provtdc
consular access to th e sa id indi vidua l at the car licst.
3. The; High Commis sion of lndîa Lo Pa kisLan avatls iLseJr of th1s
opporlunil y to re new lo the Minislr y of For eign Affai rs, Gov<:.:nnn ent of the
!~lamie Republ ic of Pak1stan th e assura nces of 1ts h1ghest consJdc rations.
Islamabad, ,July 2t>, 2016
Mini stry of Foreign Affairs
Governm ent of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
[Attention: Dir ecto r General (South Asia )j
Islamabad :l'1
.....·
.\·.~
' ,..,
•"•~ 1
•• "'1
..l' J'1J,: .-~·~:_11 .,, ·( ....
J.'- i'Lü,."Gt\H
No!SL/l03 f l4 /2 0t6
The H1gh Comm isswn of Lndia to Pak 1stan presents Jl Scon,plzm e:n: ts to the)..,[
fVlmi::ry of Pon :,gz;.Affajr s, Gov ernmenl of the Isla mtc Rcpubil c. of Pakl :>l .Jand
fun her lO the Htgh CommJSS Jon's earhe r notes verbal e of even numbc 1 dat ed \ 'lch.J
25, March :10, May 06 , June JO an d Ju ly l l, 2016 regard mg putpor tcd arr e<:t>of nn
lt1dian. nauonal, Mr . Kulbhushan Ja dh av, m Balnchtslan, !Jas the hon our to re1teratc
its rcques l tu the esleemed Mm tst ry to prov1de Consu lar i\cccss to th e saJ ù _mdt'ndu :tl
al the carlJcsl
2. Tbc 1!--gh CoHJnus::;ton also rcqucs ts thal safe ry. se cun ty aud well-beu lg of al!
ludt;u1 ::tnd beltcvcd -to -be Jndi ::.u1priso ners in Pakista1Jail ma y l<tndl yb~ c'ttsu rcd
3 The H1gh Commts~ on of Jndia to Pak istan ava tls tls elfof th1s 0pp or tttr 111to 1
1euew trJthe:: Min1st ry of Fon.:tgn Affatrs, GoveJ nme.nl of til <.:lslmn tc- Rt:publJcof
Palo ::;tan, Lh(; assu ran ces oits l·ughesl cons ideration . j
o jc
Islam abad . A11gus 1 22 , 20 Lo
M intstry of Foreign Affrurs
[Kind attention: Director Gen era l {SA & SAARC))
Government of t11cIslam ic Republt c of Pakistan
Islamabad \
1'1ROëf>ï-a.ll01,$~' t"641
HIGH COMMISSION OF INDIA
ISLAMAB AD
No.ISU1 03/1412016
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan presents its
compliments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the lslamic
Republic of Pakistan, and has the honour to refer to its eartier Notes
Verbale No.ISU103/1/2016 dated March 25, 2016, No. ISU103/14/2016
dated March 30, 2016, May 06, 2016, June 10, 2016, July 11, 2016, July
26, 2016 and August 22, 2016 regarding purported arrest of an lndian
national viz. Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav in Baluchistan.
The Mission reiterates its request to the esteemed Ministry to
provide Consular Access to the said individual at the eartiest. lt is
reiterated that safety, security andweil being of ali lndian and believed
to-be lndian prisoners, may please also be ensured till they are in
Pakistani jails.
consideration.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
{Kind Attention: Director (lndia)},
Govemment of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan,
Islamabad.
G-5, Diplomatie .Enclave, Islamabad, Phone: 0092-51-220 6950-53, Fax: 0092-51-282 3102, 282 3386, 220 6954 6.,-.:.t";_, _'{(•
~a-~-'
No. ISL/ 1OJ/ 14/20 l6
The Hi gh Com mi ssio n of lncli a Pakistan presents its comp li ments to the
Mini stryof Foreig nAffairs, Cove rnm entof the lslnm ic Republ icor Paki stan and
has the honour to ref·er tothe Hi gh Com mi ssion's enrliernotes verhale clated
25.03.201(), 30.03.20 16, 06.05.2016, 10.06.20 16, 11.07.20 16, 26.07.201 (l,
22.08.2016 and 03.1 1.2016 regardin g purp orred arrest oln lndian nationa lMr.
Kulbhushan Jadnv, in Baluchistan.
2. The Mission reiterates itrequest to 1he esteemed lVIi nistrLo provide
cônsul8r access 1o the said individua lat the c~rleit. Iris 1slo reitcratedthat
safety, security and we il being of ali lndian prisoners, includin gthat o!· Mr.
Kulb hushan Jadav, in Palistani jai ls may al.so be cnsurecl.
3. Th e Hi gh Comm ission of lndia to Pakistan avails itselfthi opponunity to
rcnew lO the Minis!ry of Foreign Affa irs, Gove rnmentorthe Ts!:-tC Rc.public of
f>akistanthe assurances or its highest consideration.
\
lslamabucl, 19 Dcccmbe r 20 16
M inistror Foreig nAffairs
Gove rnment of lhe IslarniRepubli c of Pakistan
l.slamabad.
N.O.O..: JS (PAl), Ministry ofExternal Aftair s, NeDelh i
. . ·-·.
fi-<)Jip~~. ~~,~l::~l~~ld.:;r;!"~!o~oo~ '1 J'1' " .. ' ~
' -,~.,1-• .. • ·•:.
. ' . -~!,!1.
• 'i .. ...
The Ministry of External Affairs, Governrnon t of lndia. presents its
complirnents to the High Comm ission for the lslamic Repub lic of Pakistan ,
1-Jw Delhi, and has t11ehonour to refer to previo us dell! alci tes by this Minisiry
as we il as formai notes from the High Commissio n of lnclia in lslamnbad
regarding the purported arrest of lndran national. fvir. ~\lhhusha nadhav , in
parlicular the request to provide imrnecliate consular access to fv'ir.Jadhnv.
li is with deep concern that the Ministry noies tlle continuee! deniai of consular
access to fvir. Jadhav desprte the facl that l1is lndian national ily ha~ been
affirmed on seve rai occasio ns by the Govemrn ent of Pakistan . f\lteanwhtle.
questions abo ut his treatment in Pal\istan 's custody continue to mount. given
espec ially his coerced purported confession and the cirCLHTlstances of his
presence tn Pakistan rernain urrexplained.
ln lighi of the above. tite Gove rnn 1G1\l.:;•. 1;~o r.'-~a. ain
consular access 10Mr. Jadhav.
The f\1nislry of External Affairs of lndia avails itself of lllis opp011unitrene ·N
lo the High Commission for the lslamic Republic of Paktstan l11eassurëlnces of
its lligh est consideration.
03 Februaq' 2017
r~ew Delhi
High Commi ssion for the !stamic Republic of Pa ~istan,
New Delhi.
J:HC , 1~·Nu.ISJ...10'~/14/'.'0 ln
The 111~11Com!I JI~s! lt llllclia '" P;tkisl:1pres ·~·~lS complit11t."!IIlo i [JI
1\lini :;turyFor,·i gn;\f f":urCon .:muwnt or th e l:;;l:tntl~pt:bli cf Pnkisl:tn :111d
lunha tn tlh· High (\.Hurnission 's,·:trlinl\'Oit!::i \f('d<ll t:d i'vl;'2:-M:tn·h 30,
May 06 • •l~tf• I), .July 1l,~md lk t:t•m l>nJC)ÏJI JO li ) (ll)lr'\;biU<Jr_vOJ , 20 ]a~
weil i\:-n demmdw i~;>.u<·IJ; !lw 1'illliry or Exicnt< tl :Îil<:> l\)l'aki::.fWl l llgh
l.'ounnis!>Ïil Ï1New Ddhi 011 FciJn.w t)' (J:l. '201'/ ïl·g<JI"Illl:;'tt:d<tTC! ~nf :m
lw li:,Jn~u oual , Mr . J\uiiJbuslwn Jm lll:tv in f"lal llchi st<lll ,rhc:.h onou r ln
rcJI.cr<!l1t:-rvqu.·,; l lo Lllt• t·SIIT l:\li. ni11o ptm 1d•· C'lllt :>uiIÎI'I.t'ln:1lw
~atd l!ldi\·idll niltil<carlit;: ;J
J 'l'~hH•igh CummJssi•>n a):;on:qtt·<t:slli;\1 s:•f"tsct:\tJ 1Jn(~w,:ll··bdl lQ,of
i'"\rl\ ul hll u s .Jadh: tv u1td ot lw!JtdJa npn~;on~ ntn l':tki :'linni jiJll<lkindly
be <:1:>Lrc:d.
J. 'J'.t.: HigCo 111111:>:-;ornJndia lo l)t tk isl:t\<t i:>.:l~f th~;opportllllily10
ft:llCW lo tlw Minislry of P'on: ign t\fîair:-;. <1l liiH ::n the lsl;:uni c J<qmbli of
Pak 1sla n , th:StIuntr' Hs of ils h ig iH:considf' ralion .
o( c__
Ministry orForeign AfJi.lr.is
({ind attention .; Dil ·cc toGene ral (SA & SAARC)J
Govt:rnmcn l of lh t: f:-;l:tR<.:pul.lJ1)Pal.;i:,tun
I:; 1l~bo.1
• ••---.r.-·•"' - __ ..-
\.it:f';i~ p;h~~~!~i ) ..1-,, .•
1il.:-!:1i,t•P.!1
' ,J.:.,J
' 3mër g;r 3cill•lÙtll,i$*t>liJO!Idlê!
HlGH COMMISSION OF INDIA
J lSLAMAB ·\Il
No.ISL/103/ 14/2016
The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan presents its compliments
to the Ministry of Foreign AfTairs, Govemrnent of the Jslamk Republic of
Pakistan and with reference to the Ministry's Note Verbale No. Ind IUI]-
2/13/2016 dated March 21 , 2017 has-the honour ta note the willingness of
the Pakistan side to provide consular access to the Indian national,
Kulbhushan Jadhav .
2. Consular access to Mr. Jadhav would be an essential pre -requisite in
arder to verify the facts and understand the circumstances of his presence
in Pakistan . It is,therefore, requested that immediate consular access may
be provided ta Mr. Jadhav.
3. The High Commission of India to Pakistan avails itselfof this
opportunity to renew to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the passurances of its highest consideration.
__ ....:..---
Islamabad, March 31, 2016
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Goverhment of the ·Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Islamabad
G.:5, Diplomatie Enclave . [slamaPhe>11C0092-51 -283-32&3.283-3251-5'3
F3X:0092-51-283-3290, 283·3236,283-3254 .:E\.C~E~-;:
No. J/411/8/2016
The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the High
Con1mission of the Islamic Rep1 ...1blicof Pakistan in New Delhi and l1as the
honour to convey that the Govcrnment of lncha is surprised éll the Note
Verbale No. fnd(l)-5/20/2017 dated April 10, 2017 issued by the Jvrinistry of
FUJe::ignAffairs of the Islamic Rep11blic of Pakistan and received at the High
Commission of India, Islamabad at 5:00 p.m. today rcgarding consular
access to the Indian national Kulbhusban .Jadhav on certain conditions,
which was · well after the death sentence has becn a1Narded and confinned to
Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav. This underlines the farcical nature of the
proceedings and so-called trial by a Pakistan military court martia.l.
Tb.e lv'iïnistry of External Affairs regrets thal despite repeated reque~ts,
Pakistan ~as not permitted consular a.cce.ss 8nd prevented us from
establishing the basic facts and circumstances surrounding his presence in
Pakistan .
The Ministry of External Affairs has the honour to reiterate that if the
sentence against an Indian citizen, awarded without observing basic norms
of lav,rand justice is carried out, the Government émdthe people of India ·will
regard it as a case of premeditated murder .
The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunüy to
rene ·virto the High Commission of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in Nev:.r
Delhi the assu rances of its highest consideration.
~.··.
High Commission of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Ne\v Delhi ·f~ïf:iT-'''W-li~~;!TiF~
HIGIJ COMI\t!~Sl orNTND~i\
1~;Jr,i1'.n1
No.ISL/'103/1·620
The Higl1 Commission of lndia to Pakist;:m preseitscompliments to the
Ministry of Foreign 1\ffairs, Government of the lsl<1micRepublic of Pakistan and 11asU1e
honour trcieto the High Comrnission's thirleen 1\JotesVe1br1le(includiNotehe lasi
Vc1bnle of evt-number dated Mareil 3·i, 20H),and ioreferlo tlle PresHelease
i!-.l37 dafed Apri110, 20"17,issbydInteServicesPublic Relatio(ISPI sltig
thal lndian national Mr. KulblwshaSucll1ir Jadh8v watrieunde1 Section 59 of
•1\
Pekist•Army Act (PAA) 1%2 and Section 3 of Offici8Secret/\clof 1923ihrough
FieldGeneralCourtMarshal (FGCM) and was aw<-1rciPerilsPntonce.
?. rn view 0f thisthe Minist1y oi Forc:::ignAffcGovernmen\ of l11elslamic
~erubl of cvkist<m is requesLE·ctlo provide thA follov.;ing:
(a) Certified copiès ochargesheet and t.hejuclgmeofFGC l1k
(b) Consular access to Mr. l<ulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
3. Tr1e HiglCommission oflnd ia to Pakistan avaiiselof this opport.uniio
renew to thMinistyof Foreign AffaiGovernment of the lslanRepublic of Pakistan
the assuranceof its highest consideration. ...-.."...--.:.:·-::~.
~~.,\'!.,>.!:~~
. :,":î_:-S'.~
.'li!'.t);{'\)\
f~~r-1. 1 ~ , ).
".;-.h....t./;•l
~-. . (\.,·. 't:·~.;-
",,~, 1A·
fsl~mab' 7..'7tl~~.;.J.~1(pïiJ
MlnistryofForeign Affairs
Government of thé !stamic Republof Pa~i(tan
lslamab8clNo. J/411/8/2016
The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of lndia, presents its
compliments to the High Commission of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan in
New Delhi and has the honour to refer to prevtous Notes Verbale, including
Note Verbale No. ISL/ 103/ 14/ 2016 of 14 April 2017 issued by the High
Commission of lndia to Pakistan regarding lndian national Mr. Kulbhushan
Jadhav and requests through the High Commission of Pakistan to the
concerned authorities in Pakistan to:
1. provide certified copies of the charge sheet, proceedings of the Couri of
lnquiry, the judgem ent and the summary of evidence in the case
concerning Mr. Jadhav;
ii. share the procedure for Appeal to the relevant court;
iii. facilitate the appointment of a defence lawyer for Mr. Jadhav and
facilitate contact with the High Commission of lndia in Islamabad;
iv. provide certified copy of medical report of Mr. Jadhav ;
v. issue appropriate visas to the family members of Mr. Kulbhushan
Jadh av who intend to travel to Pakistan in connection with the on-going
legal matter;
v i. provide immediate consular access to the lndian national Mr.
Kulbhushan Jadhav in keeping with the provisions of Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations, 1963.
The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to
tl:e High Commission of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan in New Delhi the
assurances of its highest consideration.
•~·.,1.
.~ ..
. '
·\·. Ne\ivDelhi
:: ·April:1·9"\2017
: 4 •• ::;\/ •
High Commission of lslamic Republic of Pakistan .. ..
~. .
New Delhi ~ cm \':fr:;ql, 'ff~ tiGt+1tEt
HIGH COMMlSSION OF INDM.
ISLAMABAD
No.ISL/1 03/14/2016
The High Commission of lrtdia to Pakistan presents its compliments to the Ministry of
Foreign J}ffairs, Government of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan and while referring to the
Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Press Release No.193/2017 dated10 April2017 and
the Press Statement by the Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs on14 April2014
regarding death sentence awarded to the lndian national. Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhîr-Jadhav.
as weil as the absence of consular access ta Mr. Jadhav, has the honour to state that the
mother of Mr. Jadhav, Mrs. Avanti Sudhir Jadhav has requested the Government of lndia to
submit and get the following dqcuments filed with the concerned autharities of the lslamic
Republic of Pakistan :
i. Petition under Sectl()n 131 of Pakistan Army Act;
ii. Appeal in the Courtof Appeals under Section 133(8) of Pakistan Army Act.
2. The esteemed Ministry of Foreign Affairs is requested to forward the above
documents (Petition and Appeal) to the concerned authorities and get these documents
filed and~dmitted. ·
3. The esteemed Ministry i·once again requested to provide consular access to Mr.
Jadhav irykeeping with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
1963.
4. The High Commission of lndia to Pakistan avails itselfthi opportunity to renew to
the Mini~t of Foreign Affairs, Government of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan the
assurances of lts hîghest consideration. 1
- 1 . ~~~
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Government of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan
lslamab~d
Enclosure: As mentioned above- (i} & {ii)
~..:D~Jtomatic . cave,Is~amaa ,Ph one.0092~=->~-o!.~~'..1-::l.)---::1----'.!.---.)..)o.;\:'.--·~-:)-ANNEX 2 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFA!RS
ISLAMABAD
r,
1 : No.Ind(III)-2113/2016 January 23, 2017
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presents
its compliments to the High Commission of the Republic of India and has the
honour to request for assistance in the investigation of case registered vide FIR
numbers 06/2016 dated 8 April 2016 and 22/2016 dated 6 September 2016, in
Police Station CTD Balochistan against an Indian national, Kulbhushan Sudhair
1.
Jadhev (Passport number L9630722) for his involvement in espionage and terrorist
·activities in Pakistan. The Letter of Assistance, seeking support of the Government
of the Republic of India in obtaining evidence, material and record for the criminal
investigation, is attached.
l ' The High Commission of the Republic of India is requested to transmit the
Letter of Assistance to the concemed authorities in India. The Government of
Pakistan would appreciate the assistance of the Indian government in the
investigation process and early dispensation of justice.
[. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to
the esteemed High Commission the assurances of its highest consideration.
r ,
l
High Commission of the Republic of ln dia,
IslamabadANNEX 3;.1-:
,•.-1
,'i
1 MINITRY OFFQt.~,·A~rcD,\j
.1
•j ISL.I\MABAD
l!
r~nn(1).-'1.3i20 l <1
'lh: f\l1.h)n,y .I~~o'hèJ.'r::lZèp11)\':: lcsmsl~\~111
i\((>iimcnlOthJltgh Hni,;s(rthRepijç 1ndi,lh1"'na:mdd
The rdinistr1rign ,\\Tairs n[ the tsl<fl\(ai'":lib
itrnr1his nppntyl<n:nc10thei~lht~ ssmnte »urancc<its
llhi.\H ~nm,i,Z:pilt'l' lndia,
lsl~~.:
1>.ANNEX 4 InterServicesPublicRelationsPakistan
Press Release
No PR-193 /2017-ISPR Dated: April 10,2017
Rawalpind i- April 10, 2017:
Indian RAW Agent 1 Naval officer 41558Z Commander Kulbushan Sudhir
Jadhav alias Hussein Mubarak Pate! was arrested on March 3, 20 16 through a Counter Intelligence Operation
from Mashkel, Balochistan, for his involvement in espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan. The spy
has been tried through Field Genera l Court Martial (FGCM) under Pakistan Army Act (PAA) and awarded
death sentence. Today COAS, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has confirmed his death sentence awarded by FGCM.
RAW agent Commander Kulbushan Sudhir Jadhav was tried by FGCM under section 59 of Pakistan Army
Act (PAA) 1952 and Section 3 of official Secret Act of 1923. FGCM found Kulbu shan Sudhir Yadhav guilty
f all the charges. He confessed before a Magistrate and the Court that he was tasked by RAW ro plan.
coordinate and organize espionage sabotage activities aiming to destabilize and ':"agewar against Pakistan by
impeding the efforts of Law Enforcement Agencies for restoring peace in Balochistan and Karachi.
The accused was provided wirh defending officer as per legal provisions.
-0-0-0-0- 0-0-0-0-0 -0-ANNEX 5 lh:.i'.tliniFO!CifAJJi uJtr:H<nmc f{!!bii(J"";;ki<;(·Hl
pre~ t,co.mptlimte!elll~(:omm <.~t;·eRcpubli<'!Nb;111
l<;hrnahad :1hllwnout.orc!.<'t!ir:.i'(:J~:ii<(•ctl!iç
pflndi:1's Nntc Vcrb:1ic Nn. ISL/1Cl!.i\~1:2}7 ;md lhi:;3,J
!vly i,cirelN!IIG Vcrlnrcv~nnumh .r :21 March:?Oi!rhc
ilvinio~Foriu /\Jfairs of thRcpuhlofJ\J1;isianhe-ïcr
honour ireitcrlha·the cforconsul;\cet-:t.Jndilln; i!ÎilJ l;)]
KuH.nBhan Jhadev hl; nsid.nin 11r:i~:o·tdi',rr.:· o:p(n;:'t~
)-;-;~Ç"i; l;mw~;~-;·in-.e=cnqves:~ipr's•J~mô·:::<•rly
di<~r iwr,im<:cthici•'-:tillpv.1h 1inr~ld·:'ll~
T h'1nistryFot ciglhi\or~;l~t:~i"'11!uf \ti<hma1ï:
ÎhG!nr tJris opportuT!'(:lothLJligCurn :i-;o.·fqdi.J. d:;:-
il:i:1CSfiihighc:cor:si.dcralioJ1.
·.-. .
...~-.
HigCommission ofRcpubiicl11dia,
IsJab~_.dANNEX 6Press Statement by Mr. Sartaj Aziz, Adviser to the Prime Minister on
Foreign Affairs on 14 April2017
(2017-04-14) Asyou are aware, the death sentence of Kulbushan Jhadav and the
subsequent statements from lndia have generated considerable discussion in the
media. A number of questions have been raised regarding trial of Kulbushan Jhadav. 1
would like to comment on the background and the developments of this case.
Kulbushan Jhadav, who is responsible for espionage, sabotage and terrorism in
Pakistan, has been tried according to the law of the land, in a fully transparent
manner while preserving his rights, as per the Constitution of Pakistan. Due process
has been followed while proceeding against Mr. Jhadav. All further action in this
regard shall also be taken in accordance with our laws.
Asis widely known, Kalbushan Jhadav alias, HussainMubarak Patel, a serving
Commander of lndian Navy, and working with the lndian Intelligence Agency/ RAWwas
apprehended on March 3, 2016 after he illegally crossed over into Pakistan from the
Saravan border in Iran. Kulbushan Jhadav was found in possessionof an lndian
passport issued by Government of lndia on May 12, 2015 and valid until May 11, 2024.
He confessed that he is a resident of Mumbai, lndia, still serving in the lndian Navy
and his retirement is due in 2022.
He was tried by Field General Court Martial (FGCM)under section 59 of Pakistan Army
Act (PAA)1952 and Section 3 of Official Secret Act of 1923. Mr. Jhadav was provided
with a legal counsel in accordance with provisions of our law. Mr. Jhadav confessed
before a Magistrate and the Court that he was tasked by the lndian Intelligence
Agency, RAW,to plan, coordinate and organize espionage and sabotage activities
aimed at destabilizing and waging war against Pakistan. Kulbushan was involved in
both espionage and terrorist/sabotage activ itie s resulting in the lossof many lives and
damage to property.
1will like to share details of sorne terrorist activities in which Kulbushan Jhadav was
directly involved.
- He sponsored and directed IEDsand Grenade Attacks in Gawadar and Turbat.
- Directed attacks on the Radar station and civilian boats in the sea, opposite Jiwani
Port.
- Funded subversive secessionist and terrorist elements through Hawala/ Hundi for
subverting the Pakistani youth against the country, especially in Balochistan.
- Sponsoredexplosions of gaspipelines and electric pylons in Sibi and Sui areas in
Balochistan.
- Sponsored lEDexplosions in Quetta in 2015, causing massive damage to life and
property.
- Sponsoredattack on Hazaras in Quetta and Shia Zaireen enroute to and back from
Iran. - Abetted attacks through anti-state elements against LEAs/FC and FWOin areas of
Turbat, Punjgur, Gawadar, Pasni and Jiwani during 2014-15, killing and injuring many
civilians and soldiers.
The Court found Mr. Jhadav guilty. The espionage case against Kulbushan was tried by
the FGCMand concluded under Pakistan Army Act Section 2 and Official Secret Act
1923. His sentence for espionage was endorsed on 10 April 2017.
The proceedings of this case went through differ ent stages in accordance with legal
requirements over a period of one year. Following is the timeline:
1. Confessional Video statement of Kulbushan Jhadav, the active RAWoperative - 25
March 2016
2. Initial FIRin CTDQuett a - 8 April 2016
3. Initial interrogat ion- 2 May 2016
4. Detailed interrogation - 22 may 2016
5. Joint Investigatio n Team constituted on 12 July 2016
6. Confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC- 22 July 2016
7. Recording of summary of evidence - 24 September 2016
8. 1st proceeding - 21 September 2016
9. 2nd proceeding - 19 October 2016
1O.3rd proceeding - 29 November 2016
11. 4th proceeding - 12 February 2017
12. Death sentence endorsed on 10 April 2017 ·•
From the outset, transparency was ensured in the proceedings of t he trial of
Commander Kulbushan Jhadav. Following steps were specifically taken to ensure
transparency under the Pakistani Laws and Pakistan Army Act.
1) His confessional stateme nt was recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164
CrPC.
2) The proceedings were conducted under the Law of Evidence (Qanun-e-Shahadat
1984) in the competent court
3) A law qualified field officer was provid ed to defend him throughout the Court
proceedings
4) All statements of witnesses were recorded under oath, in the presence of the
accused, in the court.
5) Commander Kulbushan was allowed to ask questions from witnesses.
6) During the trial, a fully qualified, law officer of Judge Advocate General (JAG)
Branch remained a part of the Court.
7) Punishment after the trial was awarded by the highest forum.
Asper law, Kulbushan Jhadav has following available options
1. He has the right to appeal within 40 days to an Appellate Court.2. He may lodge a mercy petition to the COASwithin 60 days of the decision by the
appellate court.
3. He may lodge a mercy petition to the President of Pakistan within 90 days after the
decision of COASon the mercy petition.
lt should be clear from these details that Kulbushan Jhadav was tried under the law of
the land in a full y transparent manner. His sentence is based on credible, specifie
evidence proving his involvement in espionage and terrorist activities in Pakistan.
Letter of Assistance requesting specifie information and access to certain key
witnesses was shared with the Government of lndia on 23 January, 2017. There has
been no response from the lndian side so far.
1would like to ask lndia why Kulbushan Jhadav was using a fake identity
impersonating as a Muslim?Why would an innocent man possesstwo passports, one
with a Hindu name and another with a Muslim name?Since lndia has no credible
explanation about why their serving Naval Commander was in Balochistan, it has
unleashed a flimsy propaganda campaign. lnflammatory statements and rhetoric
about "pre-meditated murder" and "unrest in Balochistan", will only result in
escalation, serving no useful purpose.
We condemn the baselessallegations from lndia, especially in the light of the fact
that it was non-cooperation and lack of lndian response to Pakistan's request for legal
assistance, due to which consular accesshas not been provided to Mr. Jhadav. May 1
mention in this context that lndia has not allowed consular access to many Pakistani
prisoners for many years despite repeated requests.
We expect lndia to behave responsibly and refrain from issuing statements that will
further aggravate people to people hostility. More active diplomacy is therefore
needed to arrest the growing crises in lndia-Pakistan relations before it becomes even
more serious.
ln conclusion of this statement, let me re-emphasize two points:
First, all political parties are unanimous that the award of death penalty after due
process and overwhelming evidence to a foreign spy, who was not only carrying out
subversive activities in Pakistan but actually promoting terrorism, is the correct
decision.
Second, the whole nation is solidly united against any threat to Pakistan'ssecurity.
http ://www .mofa .gov.pk/pr-details.php?mm=NDkyMA,,ANNEX 7,_ 14
]
arnJANNEX 8 Minister of External Affairs
lndia
~ fcHI\rl
SushmaSwaraj
April27 , 20 17
l read with keen interest your press statem ent of April 14, 2017. You had
mentioned that Mr. Kulbhu shan Jadhav has the right to appeal within 40 days in an
Appellate Court.
For fi1ing that appeal , we have requested for certified copies of the charge
sheet, proceedings of the Court of Inquiry , the summary of evidence in the case, the
judgement , appointment of a defence Jawye r and his contact details and certified copy
of medical report of Mr. Jadhav. However, the same have not been provided to us so
far.
Enco uraged by your statement about the possi bi1ity of appea l and despite
ab sence of any other docum entation that nonn ally exists in most jurisdictions , the
mother of Mr. Jadha v approached us for assista nce in pursuing ali remedies available
and also for travelling to Pakistan.
Our High Commi ssioner handed over an appea1 and a pet1t1on from the
mother of Mr Jadhav to the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan on Apr il 26, 20 17. The
parents of Mr .Jadhav have also applied for visa to travel to your country and seek
justice for their son.
I request Your Rxcellency's persona! intervention in the matter so that justice
is meted out to Mr Jadhav.
With assurances of my highest cons ideration.
Yours sincere ly,
fma Swaraj
H.E. Mr Sartaj Aziz
Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affair s
Islamabad
172, South Block, New Delhi-11 0011 Tel: 91-11 -23011127, 23011165 ·Fax : 91- 11-230 11463ANNEX 9http://vvww.mofa.gov.pklpr-details.pl:m?mm =NDkONA,
Record of the Press Briefing by Spokesperson on 20 April 2017
(20 17-04-20) [This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be
updated.]
Openin g Remarks
Bismillah IrRelunan NirRahim Assalaam Alaikum
I offer my profound condolences to Mr. Zafar Hashmi, Chief Repo rter Dunya News on the
sad demise of his beloved father yesterclay. May Allah rest the departed sou! in eternal peace
and grant fortitude to the bereaved family to bear the irreparable loss, Amecn!
Will ofKashmiris inlndi an occupied Jammu & Kaslm1ir was clearly visi ble in their outright
rejection of sham elections there. Our Prime Minister, while calling upon Int'l Communit y to
stop Indian atrocities in IOK, rightly said that 'use of brute force against innocent Kashmiris ,
who refusee!to participate in the sham elections, cannat suppress their human urge of
freedom .'HatTowing stories from Indian occup ied Kashmir contin ue to raise concerns in
Pakistan.
Last week, Indian Home Minister claimed that Indian government will control the situation
within a year and showed his determi nation to do with whatever it takcs.
The important developm ents that have followed this warning arc:
Operation against Educational Institutions : Indian occupation forces have launched an all out
war on Kashm iri students. They have attacked women education institutions as wel l. A dozen
colleges have been attacked , injurin g thousands of student s - bath boys and girls. It is
pertinent to mention that almost all the Kashmiris, who have been slain by the occupation
authorities inIOK, were studen ts- a large numb er of them with Mastcrs degrees in science or
social science s.
Open violation of human rights: Displayin g compl ete disregard for the UN Charter and
Internation al Covenant and Convention s and challenging the Internationa l Community.
Recen tly, 'leaked' severa !ideos , open ly showing use ofh tm1an shield , beating, abusing and
humiliatin g Kashmiri s in the IoK by the occupation forces, is a manifestation.
Social Media is being batmed to ensure that 'reports of crimes against humanity committed by
Indian occupation forces do not go out ofiOK .
lndian brutalities , murder and blindin g could not deter Kashmiri pro-freedom struggle and
spirit.We remain committed to extending our unflinching moral, political and diplom atie
support to the Kashmiris.
Visits of dignitat·ies and high-leve l delegations from various coun tries and Internationalforums continuee!. We have kept you updated on the outcome through press releases.
Now the Floor is open for Question s
Question
1want to ask you this question that Indian spy and terrorist, who was arrcs ted from Pakistan -
Commander Kulbhushan Jhadev, his case has been thorough ly followed by the lndian
Government and media to the extent that they have summonecl our diplomats. I want to ask
that we had buge tragedy that was of Samjhauta Express terrorist attack in 2007. It was a big
terrorist activity. Did our diplomatie mission approach or Foreign Office summoned any
lndian diplomat in this regard? So, thal they share with us details of the investigations and
punishments to RSS terrorists , Swami Aseemanand and Col. Purohit. When will they be
sentenced and what is the status ofthcir case or has it been set aside? (Sheeba Mahar- Daily
SAMAA)
Supplementary Question
Indian Ministry of External Affairs has summoned Pakistani Deputy High Commissione r and
they have protes red on the death sentence of Kulbhushan Jbadev. They have also requested
for the Consular access. What is your take on this? (Tariq Sial - Daily Times)
Answcr
I think I have been briefing you people on the efforts that we are putting in to get the
information about the Samjhauta Express tcrrorist attack. You have rightly pointee!out that.
Wc have taken up this issue but I necd to check back. l catmot give you response off-the-cuff
whethcr we have summoned anyonc from the Indian I-ligh Commission and if we die!so,
when? I need to note this question and we can get back to you with a reply. Your question
was specifie to the summoning aspect and asto what we have clone, so far. We die!take up
the issue of Samjhauta Express tcrrorist attack on munerous occasions with Indian leadership
as well as tlu·oughdiplomatie channels seeking information of proceedings of the
investigations into that terrorist attack. Swami i\.ssemanand, who was the Mastennind, macle
a confession in 2010, ifl rccall corrcctly. l-Ie also identifiee!Col Purohit, who was then
serving Indian army officcr, who was also the head of a terrorist organization, Abhinath
Bharat. He was an accomplice in the Samjhauta Express terrorist attack. Samjhauta terrorist
attack was not the only terrorist attack but there were many other which were identifiee! by
SM Mushrifwho was IG ofMaharashtra and he wrote a book entitled: 'Who Killed Karkare.'
The book reflects asto how RSS, in c01mivance with IB and other government institutions
and organizations have remained involved in a number of terrorist attacks, which they carried
out themselves or staged in India and blamed on others including Pakistan .
I will check what the answer on your question and get back to you. Mr. Tariq you have
mentioned about smnmoning of our Deputy High Commissioner on the issue relatee! to
Commander Kulbhushan . As he was summonecl definitely to convey their reaction but this is
not something new they did, it was a reaction after award of the death sentence to the
Commander Kulbhushan, who is a spy and he made confessions that he was involvcd inteiTorfinancing, subversive and terrorist activities in Pakistan besicles being a spy and
indulging in espionage. Then regarding consular access we have said this earlier also that we
have bilateral agreement on consular access and according to A11IV, in ali such cases as the
one of Commander Kulbhushan the request of this nature would be decided on the basis of
merits.
Question
India has decided to put al! bilateral interaction s on hold over the death sentence to
Commander Kulbhushan Jhadev. The meeting bctwcen Pakistan Maritime Security Agency
and Indian Coast Guard which were postponed and even release of Pakistani prisoners who
have completed sentences has been withheld. How do you see thèlndian reaction to save a
terrorist who has confessed to al! his committed crimes? (Amjad Ali = PTV)
Supplementary Question
My question is regarding the sentence awarded to Kulbhushan Jhadev thal the Indian media is
saying that it is violation of Vienna Convention A11.36 that he is not being given Consular
Access. What is your take on this? My second question is that as summer scason starts in
Pakistan, foreign tourists will stm1coming to Pakistan for hiking and mountaineering. Has
there been a special desk established in our missions for promoting tourism in Pakistan? (Fida
Hussain - Radio News Network)
Answer
First the second question regarding tourism. There is a comprehensive policy for promoting
tourism. In this regard guidelines are provided from time to timc to the Pakistan missions
abroad. There are different types of tourism such as 'Sightseeing', students of history come
and see the historical places or heritage of Pakistan. There are set guidelines for issuing visas
for trekking and mountaineering. For that activity there are authorized tour operators and
those who faeilitate trekkers and mountaineers. The contacts and website details of
authorized people, who can ana nge these expeditions, are available online and also our
Missions Abroad. Those who are seeking to come to Pakistan for tourism may get the
information from those sources.
Asto your second question about Commander Jhadev, who is responsible for cspionage,
sabotage and terrorism in Pakistan, was tried according to the law of the land, in a fully
transparent mann er while preserving his rights, asper the Constitution of Pakistan. His
sentence is based on credible, specifie evidence proving his involvement in espionagc and
ten·orist activities in Pakistan, resulting in the Joss of scores of precious lives of Pakistanis.
The reaction from India, especially withholding the release of Pakistani prisoners, who have
completed their sentences, for a spy and terrorist working against Pakistan's national
interests, is disappointing. Inflammatory statements emanating l'romIndia are against
international norms and will only result in escalation, serving no constructive purposc. Indian
reaction should be seen in the backdrop of exposme of its state involvemcnt in perpetrating
subversive and terrorist activities inPakistm1.I would once again tmderscorc the point that Indian reaction must be secn in the backdrop of
its exposure of involvem cnt in terrorism and terror-financ ing in Pakistan.
Question
Prime Minister of Azad Jammu & Kashmir has askcd the government of Pakistan to convince
the Organization oflslamic Cooperation to carry out economie blockade oflndia because of
rising atrocities in IoK. Will Pakistan take any initiative in this regard? (Khawaja Nayaar
lqbal - Kashmir Post)
Answer
OIC has always extended its unequivocal support to the Kashmiris for their right to self
determination in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. There is also an OIC
Contact Group on Kashmir.
Recently, a high rankin g delegation oflndependcnt Permanent Human Rights Commission
(IPHRC) of OIC visited Pakistan and AJK from 27 to 29 March 2017. Regrettably, they werc
denied access by India in lndian occupied Kaslm1ir. Their visit enabled them to get a clearer
tmderstanding of what was happening in Kashmir. Pakistan openly welcomed the delegation,
and during their 3-day stay they met family members ofvictims of Indian atrocities.
Moreover , OIC Sccretary General also visited Pakistan recently and expressed deep concern
over lndian brutalities and gross human rights violations in IoK.
The Government of Pakistan will continue to approach the international community including
OIC and UN to bring to their notice the grave situation prevailing in IoK. We remain
conm1itted to extending moral, political and diplomatie suppott to oppresse d Kashmiri s in
IoK, who must be given their legitimate right to self-determination, in accordance with the
relevant UN Security Council Resolutions.
We remind the international community that much revered values of humanity, justice,
freedom and international human rights must not be compromised lor the political or
economie expediencies.
Question
Fresh videos of Indian atrocities in IoK have come to fore which exposed the honible
practices of Indian occupation forces in Indian occupied Kashmir against the defenceless
Kashmiris. Voices within India, including its media, bave raised voice against these ghastly
instances. Your comment s please! Has Pakistan laken up this issue internationally also?
(Shahid Maitla- ARYNews)
Answer
The Indian brutalities have intensified, especially since 8 July 2016. The popular andindigenous demand for their right to self-determination has further intensified in the wake of
brutalities unleashed by the Indian occupation forces. Hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris
have tlu·onged to the streets in IOK, peacefu lly demanding their inalienable right to self
determination. The Indian occupation forces have been using live ammunition and pellet guns
against the protesters, as a result of which more than 200 civilians have been ki!led so far,
and arotmd 20,000 injured. The Indian occupation forces have mass blinded the Kashmiri
youth, including women and children, by deliberatcly targeting their eyes with pellet gun
shots. This is the first incident of mass blinding in human history as rightly pointed out in a
British daily, The Guardia.n's12-page article published on 8 Nov. 2016, which said: 'Therc is
no recorded instance of a modern democracy systematicall y and willfully shooting at people
to blind them.'
We strongly condemn the Indian barbarities in IoK and call uponrthe internationa l
community including the UN to take immediate notice of the gross human rights violations.
Question
Afghan Ambassador Zakhilwal hinted that a joint operation against TTP leader Mullah
Fazlullah could be possible in near future. Has the Afghan side officially contactee! Pakistan
in this regard? Have they shared information about the whereabouts ofTTP leadership? l-Ias
Afghanistan also extended such cooperation to hunt top leadership of JuA, especially after
surrender of forme r TTP Spokesman Ehsan Ullah Ehsan?
Secondly, what is your reaction on North Korea's recent missile tests? (Essa Naqvi - Dunya
News)
Answer
Asto yom first question, Pakistan bas been stating that there are hideouts of JuA and TTP in
Afghanistan from where they continue to launch attacks in Pakistan. We have urged the
Afghan Government to take action against these tcnorists.
On your second question, Pakistan regrets that DPRK continues to undertake actions in
violation of its international obligations under the relevant UNSC resolution s. Pakistan
expresses grave concern at the recent missile launches carried out by DRPK.
Question
First there are 50 Pakistanis detained in Libya, holding legal passpor ts and Visas. According
to information , six persans are in Massada, seven are in Karak and so on. Our embassy is
helpless in their release. There is deplorable condition of our embassy there is no officer
there, it is run by grade 15 officer.
Secondly, in Afghanistan mother of ali bombs was dropped , was there a Pakistani or Taliban
terror ist killed, has info been shared with us? (Abbas Yawar- Urdu Express)Supplementary Question
In Afghanistan mother of ail bombs was droppcd, was there any environmental impact on
Pakistan ? (Anwar Abbas Waqt News)
Answer
Asto Mr. Abbas Yawar's first question, I don't have information on this particular case of 50
detainees as of new. I have noted your specifie query but let me reflect on the issue of
Pakistan is'welfare abroad as a matter of policy. Pakistani living or working in a foreign
country are required to follow the local laws. They are usually arrested when found in
violation of the locallaws. If there is an Embassy, il is our responsibi lity, which we fulfill,
whenever we receive a report about detention of any Pakistani in any crime, we approach and
request the host goverrunent to get the crime for which he or she is detained. And accordingly
we take up the case with that govcnu11ent. The procedme also involves ascertaining of the
person's antecedents whether he or she is a Pakistani or not.
Question
After the "do more" rhetoric of Obama Administration and the moLmtingpressme on
Pakistan, do you think that the Trump Administr ation's policies towards Pakistan are any
different from his predecesso r? (Ayaz Gul - YOA)
Supplementary Question
Since the American Administration is increasing ly concerned about terrorist ac tivities, and its
debilitating effect in the region, did Pakistan raise up the issue of Kulbhushan Yadav with the
visiting US NSA, since his case is a testimon y to India'sactive involvement in state terrorism
and telTor financing in Pakistan? (Tariq Mahmood- SAMAA TV)
Answer
This was the Iirst high levet visit from Trump Administ ration to Pakistan. It reflected the high
impottance the new admin istration attaches to its relations with Pakistan. We had issued the
press release on the outcome of the visit. The largcr context of the meeting was to reDect on
the regional situation, with particular reference to situation in Afghan istan, and how Pakistan
and the US could address the situation in Afghanistan together, and bring lasting peace to the
region. The question ofKashmir in the context ofPakistan-Ind ia relations was also discussed,
as the situation has raised concerns across the world. Pakistan wishes to build its relations
with the new adminish·ation and on the basis of existing solid foundat ion, we want to lake it
the next levels.
As far as recognition of Pakistan's efforts towards Iight against terrorism is concerned, the US
and the entire world at various levels of politicalle adership have time and again recognized
Pakistan's contribution s, sacrifices and econom ie lasses in the fight against terrorism. We
draw no distinction, and have taken ac tion against all types of terrorists, the manifestation ofwhich is the improved security and economie situation in the country.
The US eommande rs and Senior army personnel, who visited Pakistan recently and visited
those areas in Pakistan that were previously considercd tenor ist infested areas, lauded
Pakistan's gains made in its fight against tenori sm. Not only did they leave satisfied, but they
also made their views public.
Question
Indian media reported that US National Security Adviser H.R McMaste r after talks with
Afghan leaders in Kabul, has called on regional countrics, including Russia and Pakistan, not
to support the Afghan Taliban. Did he raise the issue and what was Pakistan'sresponse?
(Saima Shabbir- Bol News)
Answer
The pm·pose of McMas ter'svisit to Afghanistan and Pakistan was to gain perspective on
peace and stability in Afghanistan as the Trump Administration is prescntly undertaking its
review of the Afghan policy. In this regard, the two sides had a constructive exchange of
views. Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US have a shared interest in promoting peace in
Afghanistan.
Qu estion
Reportedly , Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India may meet on the sidelines of seo Summit
despite the hostile enviromnent between the two countries. Do you foresee any likelihood of
such a meeting, as it is being said that the US leadership is pushing for such a meeting?
(Asghar Ali Mubar ak - Daily Mail Islamabad)
Answer
There is nothing on the table yet as se o Summit is almost two months away. Nevertheless,
we have c onsistently maintained that meaningful, result oriented dialogue, sustainable and
constructiv e engagement to address ali outstanding issues, particularly Kashmir dispute, is
the only way for ward. Hostility and escalation benefits none.
Question
During US NSA McMaster's talks in the Foreign Office, the subject of Daesh was raiscd, as
we have seen severa! arrests in the past few days to this effect. My question is that we have
previously said that Daesh bas no footprint in Pakistan. However, thcrc are these arrests
especially on the Pak-Afghan border what steps are Pakistan taking to tackle this issue?
(Naveed Akbar - Daily Dunya)Answer
1have said this previously also that there is no organized presenceof Daesh in Pakistan.
What you are referring to are sporadic instances of a few volunteers who eithcr doi t for
money or profiling. As far as the presence of Daesh in Afghanistan is concerned, it has been
confirm ed by the UN and US Commander John Nicholson in their recent reports. This is a
matter of growing concern for many countries in the region, and has been a central issue at
the recent meeting on Afghan istan in Moscow. There is a co mmon concern that Daesh and
other terrorist outfits areming together and gaining foothold in Afghanistan and
endangerin g regional peace and stability. Regional countries are mindful and considering
ways to tackle the issue.
Question
In the case of kidnapped Colonel Habib Zahir we have beard reports about lndian
involvement in the matter. Has Pakistan formally taken up the matt er with India? (Saad Umar
- Roze News)
Answer
As regards your question, you are aware that Lt. Colonel Retired Mohammad Habib Zahir
bas been missing since 6 April 2017 from Lumbini, Nepal where he went for a job interview.
In view of the revelations about the fake cmails and website he was contacted from, we
cannat rule out foul play by hostile agencics in his disappearance. The govermnent of
Pakistan has taken up the matter of his disappearance with the Nepal Government with the
request to trace him.An FIR each has also been lodged bath in Islamabad and in Nepal.
We have also shared additional information with the Nepal governn1ent on 18 April
2017about the individuals who reportedly received him at Lumbini , made his hotel
reservations and booked his tickets which we believe may be helpful in locating him. His
family is very distressed and we hope that he is located at the earliest.
Question
What is the outcome of the Moscow talks? Is the Afghan Taliban also the part oi it?
Secondly, Wall Street Journal has reported that Pakistan bas deployed five thousand troops
on Saudi-Yemen border and it will also fight against the rebels in Yemen. lia s Pakistan
changed its policy Yemen? (Ali Husnain - Business Recorder)
Answer
Asto your second question, this is a media rep011and does not warrant any response.
Regarding the Moscow talks, it was about the situation in Afghanistan, and 11 countries
participated in thetalks including Afghanistan. There was a consensus that ail participatingcountries were concerned about the deter iorating security situation in Afghan istan,
particularl y the growing presence of terrorist outfits, including Daesh in Afghanistan, and its
implication s on regional peace and stability. This also figured in Moscow talks. Parlicipatin g
countries discussed that there is urgent need to deal with the security situation in Afghanistan.
The outcome was a common concem and understanding asto how the situation in
Afghanistan should be dealt with.
Question
Whether a Pakistani Parliamentar y delegation plans a visit to Afghanistan? (Rabia- Radio
Mashaal)
Answer
I need to check the details.ANNEX 10 •-~:.:~"é·:~·:..:.!.-J..:_;,t.:~'.:=-:::~.~_:;.:x-.··..-----· __...-=--...·........-.- -· · ··--
~..·- --- ._.___.. -------·...---- ---_ -______ .....--..;;..-~-·---··--····.~-.....-..-~..
The Gove rr.ù-nent of India and the Gm-ern m ent of Pa..ldsta_T,J.
desirous of furt h eri :ng th e object:ve of human e treat:::nent of
riationals of either count..-y a.r-!ested, detained o r im priscned in the ~.
other coUJ.1t. y, h ave agreed to reciprocal consul ar facilitics as ·•
follows: ..
(i) Each Govemme n t sha1i mai.TJ.tclliJ.a comprehensive list cf ~·
-G'le na tion.als of the other cow"ïtrv LLTJ.der its arrest,
detention or .imprisonment. The lis stal~ be exchanged
on lst Januarf and }slJuly each year.
(ii) Immediate notification of any arrest, detention or
imprisonment of any persan of the oL"ler country shêll be
provided to the respective High Commission .
(iii) Each Govenunent undertakes to expeàitiously inf orm the
other of the sentences awarded to the convicted nationals ..
ofthe other counbJl. '
(iv1 Each GoveiTll-nen t shall orovide consUlar access 'Arithin
. 1 ...
three months to nationals of one countr:.,r, lli'1der arrest,
~·. detention or imprisorunent in the btt. coeUi'J.try.
"...... (v) Both Gove:rnm ents agree to release and repaû iate pe:::sons
' \-vithln one m onth of confirmation of their national status
a..J.d completio n of sen tences.
(vj) In case of a.TTest, detention or sentence made on political or
security groun ds , ea ch side may exat-nine the case on its
;:.. rneri ts .
(vii) In spec ial ca se s, which cali for or require compassionate
and hum ani tar ian considerations, each side may exercise
. ...
it s discre tion subj ect ta its laws and r egtliation s to aJlow
early release and repa triat ion of pe rsans .
This agreement shall come Ï.<J.toforce on the date of its
s1gmng.
Done at Islamabad on .21 1VIay, 2008 in two originals, m
English lan~a,g eech text being equaJly authentic~--- -
--~·--·:::~:.::·.- -..-::·:: ;.-..·-·. -·~.-·-!').- --_: .--r::·) --_·..... .
71 9 · {_;wii/YYv z_W _ J
Shahid M Satyabrata Pal
High Comrnissioner of Pakistan High Commissioner of India
For the Govenunent of 'G~e For the Government of the .:
Isla ~Re1publi .c of Pakistan Republic of IndiaANNEX 11htt ps: //www. dawn.com/news/1327063
Jadhav's case : bar warning to lawyers
THE NEWSPAPER 'S STAFF REPO RTERPUBLISHED APR 15,
2017 06:43AM
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) on
Friday warned the lawyers against accept ing brief of
convicted Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav.
LHCBA secretary Amir Saeed Rawn said it had decided to take
action, including cancellation of membership, against the
lawyer(s) found pursuing appeal of Jadhav against his conviction
by a military court. He said India had been calling Jadhav its son
and pressurising Pakistan government for his release .
Mr Rawn said the lawyers would not allow release of J adhav who
had been found guilty of playing with the lives of innocent people
in Pakistan .
Published in Dawn, April lSth, 201 7
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in the Registry of the Court
on 8 May 2017
JADHAV CASE
(INDIA v. PAKISTAN)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
REQUÊTE
INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour
le 8 mai 2017
AFFAIRE JADHAV
(INDE c. PAKISTAN)
2
2017
General List
No. 168
APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
table of contents
Page
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
II. Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. Jurisdiction of the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
IV. The Vienna Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
V. The claims of India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
VI. Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3
2017
Rôle général
no 168
REQUÊTE INTRODUCTIVE D’INSTANCE
[Traduction]
table des matières
Page
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. Les faits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
III. Compétence de la Cour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IV. La convention de Vienne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
V. Les demandes de l’Inde . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
VI. Mesures demandées . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Liste des annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4
On behalf of the Republic of India, and in accordance with Article 40, paragraph
1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter “Court”)
and Article 38 of the Rules of the Court, read along with Article 1 of the Optional
Protocol concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes done at Vienna on
24 April 1963, I respectfully submit this Application instituting proceedings on
behalf of and in the name of the Republic of India against the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan for egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
1963 (the “Vienna Convention”) by Pakistan in the matter of the detention
and trial of an Indian national, Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav which has resulted
finally on 10 April 2017 in a death sentence being awarded to the said Indian
national. The dispute being raised arises out of the interpretation and the application
of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and lies within the
compulsory jurisdiction of this Court as provided in Article 1 of the Optional Protocol
Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
I am also enclosing a request for urgent provisional measures pursuant to Article
41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court.
The request for provisional measures seeks immediate orders as the Indian national
who was tried by a military court has been sentenced to death, and his fate is uncertain
due to lack of information and continued denial of consular access. The present
proceedings relate to the violation of the Vienna Convention in relation to the
arrest and trial of the Indian national Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav. India
apprehends that although an appellate remedy is ostensibly available, it may be
quickly exhausted in the same farcical manner in which his trial has been rushed
through, and he could be executed summarily. India has no other legal recourse by
which it could secure the interests of this Indian national except by way of the
present proceedings.
I. Introduction
1. The authorities of Pakistan allegedly arrested, detained, tried, convicted and
sentenced to death an Indian national Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, and he is
currently under a death sentence being held in Pakistan. The competent authorities
of Pakistan, despite repeated requests by India beginning March 2016 have not
granted consular access. Pakistan has, thus, been in egregious violation of its obligations
under subarticles (a) (b) and (c) of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the 1963
Vienna Convention.
2. These violations have prevented India from exercising its rights under the
Vienna Convention and have also deprived the Indian national of the protection
accorded under the Vienna Convention and violated his rights under the Vienna
Convention. This Application is being brought by India on its own behalf to seek
relief in relation to violation of its rights, as well as on behalf of its citizen who has
been seriously prejudiced and now faces a death sentence, in a process that deliberately
and consciously denied to him the rights under Article 36 (1) (b) of the
Vienna Convention.
3. The ICJ has held that the rule on exhaustion of local remedies is not applicable
when a State invokes direct violation of its rights. In such cases, the State is not
bound to wait until domestic proceedings have been completed by its injured
national. Nor is the exhaustion of local remedies a compulsory requirement if the
respondent State itself has failed to inform the person concerned about available
5
Au nom de la République de l’Inde, et conformément au paragraphe 1 de l’article
40 du Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice (ci-
après, la « Cour ») et à
l’article 38 de son Règlement, lus conjointement avec l’article premier du protocole
de signature facultative concernant le règlement obligatoire des différends fait à
Vienne le 24 avril 1963, j’ai l’honneur de soumettre la présente requête introductive
d’instance contre la République islamique du Pakistan, en raison de graves violations
de la convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires de 1963 (ci‑après, la
« convention de Vienne ») commises par cet Etat dans le cadre de la détention et du
procès d’un ressortissant indien, M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, qui ont abouti à
la condamnation à mort de l’intéressé le 10 avril 2017. Le présent différend a trait
à l’interprétation et à l’application de la convention de Vienne et, ainsi que le prévoit
l’article premier du protocole susmentionné, relève de la compétence obligatoire
de la Cour.
J’ai également l’honneur de présenter une demande urgente en indication de
mesures conservatoires, conformément à l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour et aux
articles 73, 74 et 75 de son Règlement. Par cette demande, l’Inde sollicite la prescription
immédiate de certaines mesures, le sort de son ressortissant, qui a été jugé par un
tribunal militaire et condamné à mort, étant incertain en raison d’un manque d’informations
et d’un déni continu du droit de l’Inde de communiquer avec lui par
l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires. La présente instance a donc trait à la violation
de la convention de Vienne dans le cadre de l’arrestation et du procès de
M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, ressortissant indien. Bien que la possibilité d’interjeter
appel soit formellement prévue, l’Inde redoute qu’il ne s’agisse là que d’un simulacre,
à l’image du procès de l’intéressé dont le déroulement a été expéditif, et que
cette voie de recours ne se trouve épuisée rapidement, M. Jadhav risquant alors
d’être exécuté sommairement. La présente instance constitue par conséquent l’unique
recours juridique permettant à l’Inde de défendre les intérêts de son ressortissant.
I. Introduction
1. Il apparaît que les autorités pakistanaises ont arrêté, détenu, jugé, déclaré
coupable et condamné à mort un ressortissant indien, M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav,
lequel reste détenu au Pakistan. En dépit des multiples demandes que l’Inde a
présentées à cet effet à partir du mois de mars 2016, les autorités pakistanaises
compétentes ne l’ont pas autorisée à entrer en communication avec son ressortissant
par l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires. Le Pakistan a donc gravement
manqué aux obligations que lui imposent les litt. a), b) et c) du paragraphe 1 de
l’article 36 de la convention de Vienne de 1963.
2. Ces violations ont empêché l’Inde d’exercer les droits qu’elle tient de cet instrument,
privant par ailleurs son ressortissant de la protection que celui‑ci lui
reconnaît et enfreignant les droits qu’il lui confère. L’Inde introduit la présente
requête en son nom propre afin qu’il soit porté remède à la violation de ses droits,
ainsi qu’au nom de son ressortissant, qui a subi un grave préjudice et a été
condamné à mort à l’issue d’un procès au cours duquel il a été délibérément et
sciemment privé des droits qui sont les siens en vertu du litt. b) du paragraphe 1 de
l’article 36 de la convention de Vienne.
3. La Cour a jugé que la règle relative à l’épuisement des voies de recours
internes ne trouve pas à s’appliquer lorsqu’un Etat invoque une violation directe
de ses droits. En pareil cas, l’Etat concerné n’est pas tenu d’attendre que son ressortissant
lésé ait fait usage de toutes les procédures internes sans obtenir gain de
cause. L’épuisement des voies de recours internes n’est pas non plus une condition
6
remedies in consonance with its obligations under international law (Arrest Warrants
case; LaGrand case quoted in The Statute of the International Court of Justice
— A Commentary, edited by Zimmermann, Tomuschat and Oellers-Frahm,
2005, p. 648). In view of the above, India is competent to bring this Application
before the Court.
II. Facts
4. An Indian national (Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav) was allegedly arrested on
3 March 2016.
5. On 25 March 2016, India was informed of this alleged arrest when the Foreign
Secretary, Pakistan raised the matter with the Indian High Commissioner in
Islamabad. On that very day, India sought consular access to the said individual at
the earliest.
6. The request did not evoke any response. Thus, on 30 March 2016, India sent
a reminder reiterating its request for consular access to the individual at the earliest.
Thirteen more reminders were sent by India on 6 May 2016, 10 June 2016,
11 July 2016, 26 July 2016, 22 August 2016, 3 November 2016, 19 December 2016,
3 February 2017, 3 March 2017, 31 March 2017, 10 April 2017, 14 April 2017 and
19 April 2017 (Annex 1). All these requests fell on deaf ears.
7. Almost a year after India’s first request for consular access, on 23 January
2017 India received a request (Annex 2) from Pakistan for assistance in investigation
of what was described as “FIR No. 6 of 2016”. Under the Pakistan Code of
Criminal Procedure, the expression “FIR” is used as an acronym for the first information
report which is registered after the police comes to know of the commission
of a crime. This was the criminal complaint that was registered against the Indian
national apparently on 8 April 2016. What is significant is that this letter acknowledged
that this “FIR” had been registered against “an Indian national”, hence
confirming the nationality of the individual.
8. Thus, the nationality of the arrested person, who was undergoing trial and
that too in a military court was not in dispute or doubt. The international obligation
to allow consular access under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention had
admittedly been breached by Pakistan. It is obvious that even the right of Mr. Jadhav
to seek and obtain consular access had been breached by Pakistan.
9. On 3 February 2017 India protested through a demarche against the continued
denial of consular access despite the fact that his Indian nationality had been
affirmed by Pakistan. The letter from Pakistan seeking assistance referred to in
paragraph 7 above also established that there was a purported confession by him
which was the basis or at least a significant part of the case against him. India,
therefore, raised the concern of his safety pointing out that “questions about his
treatment in Pakistan’s custody continue to mount, given especially his coerced
purported confession, and the circumstances of his presence in Pakistan remain
unexplained”.
10. On 3 March 2017 India reminded Pakistan of its various requests including
its demarche of 3 February 2017 and again requested consular access.
7
obligatoire si l’Etat défendeur lui-
même a manqué d’informer l’intéressé des
recours disponibles, conformément aux obligations que lui impose le droit international
(affaire relative au Mandat d’arrêt ; affaire LaGrand citée dans The
Statute
of the International Court of Justice — A Commentary (sous la direction de
Zimmermann, Tomuschat et Oellers-Frahm, 2005, p. 648)). Au vu de ce qui précède,
l’Inde est donc fondée à soumettre la présente requête à la Cour.
II. Les faits
4. M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, ressortissant indien, aurait été arrêté le
3 mars 2016.
5. L’Inde a été avisée de cette prétendue arrestation le 25 mars 2016, lorsque le secrétaire
d’Etat aux affaires étrangères du Pakistan en a fait état auprès du haut-commissaire
indien à Islamabad. Le jour même, elle a demandé à pouvoir entrer en communication
au plus vite avec M. Jadhav par l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires.
6. N’ayant reçu aucune réponse, l’Inde a réitéré sa demande le 30 mars 2016,
puis à treize autres reprises : les 6 mai 2016, 10 juin 2016, 11 juillet 2016, 26 juillet
2016, 22 août 2016, 3 novembre 2016, 19 décembre 2016, 3 février 2017, 3 mars
2017, 31 mars 2017, 10 avril 2017, 14 avril 2017 et 19 avril 2017 (annexe 1). Toutes
ces demandes sont restées lettre morte.
7. Le 23 janvier 2017, soit près d’un an après la première demande de l’Inde
tendant à ce que ses autorités consulaires puissent entrer en communication avec
son ressortissant, le Pakistan a adressé à celle‑ci une demande d’assistance
(annexe 2) dans le cadre d’une enquête engagée sous la référence « FIR no 6 de
2016 ». Au sens du code de procédure pénale pakistanais, le « FIR », pour First
Information Report, désigne le procès-verbal
établi lors du dépôt initial d’une
plainte à la police. Le document en question portait sur la plainte pénale déposée,
apparemment le 8 avril 2016, contre le ressortissant indien. Il est important de relever
que la lettre du Pakistan précisait que ledit document avait été déposé contre
« un ressortissant indien », confirmant ainsi la nationalité de l’intéressé.
8. Il n’y avait par conséquent aucune contestation ni aucun doute en ce qui
concerne la nationalité de la personne arrêtée, laquelle faisait l’objet d’un procès,
qui plus est devant un tribunal militaire. Le Pakistan a donc, de toute évidence,
manqué à l’obligation internationale que lui impose l’article 36 de la convention de
Vienne de permettre à l’Inde de communiquer avec son ressortissant par l’entremise
de ses autorités consulaires. A n’en pas douter, il a également méconnu le droit de
M. Jadhav de solliciter et d’obtenir de communiquer avec ces mêmes autorités.
9. Le 3 février 2017, l’Inde a officiellement protesté contre le déni persistant de
son droit de communiquer avec son ressortissant, alors même que le Pakistan avait
reconnu la nationalité indienne de celui-
ci. La demande d’assistance du Pakistan
mentionnée au paragraphe 7 faisait par ailleurs référence à de prétendus aveux de
l’intéressé, qui constituaient le fondement des accusations portées à son
encontre — ou, à tout le moins, un élément important des charges retenues contre
lui. L’Inde a donc exprimé ses préoccupations quant à la sécurité de son ressortissant,
précisant que, « compte tenu, notamment, du caractère forcé des prétendus
aveux de l’intéressé, le traitement dont celui-
ci fai[sait] l’objet dans le cadre de sa
détention au Pakistan soul[evait] des inquiétudes grandissantes, les circonstances
de sa présence au Pakistan demeurant par ailleurs inexpliquées ».
10. Le 3 mars 2017, l’Inde a rappelé au Pakistan ses démarches successives, y
compris celle du 3 février 2017, et demandé de nouveau à entrer en communication
avec son ressortissant par l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires.
8
11. India received another Note Verbale dated 21 March 2017 (Annex 3) from
Pakistan. In this, Pakistan stated that “the case for the consular access to the
Indian national . . . shall be considered in the light of [the] Indian side’s response to
Pakistan’s request for assistance in investigation process and early dispensation
of justice”.
12. The foregoing facts of the case including the Note Verbale of 21 March
2017 establishes that Pakistan had been acting in brazen violation of its
obligations
under the Vienna Convention, as this Convention does not include any
exceptions in respect of consular access rights recognized in Article 36. The linking
of assistance in the investigation process to the grant of consular access was by
itself a serious violation of the Vienna Convention.
13. India responded to this Note Verbale on 31 March 2017 pointing out that,
“consular access to Mr. Jadhav would be an essential prerequisite in order to verify
the facts and understand the circumstances of his presence in Pakistan”. India had
information that he had been 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. These matters required verification, the first step for which would
be consular access.
14. A press release issued by Inter Services Public Relations on 10 April 2017,
regarding Mr. Jadhav conveyed that “The spy has been tried through Field
General
Court Martial (FGCM) under Pakistan Army Act and awarded death
sentence. Today COAS, General Qamar Javed Bajwa has confirmed his death
sentence
awarded by FGCM.” (Annex 4.)
15. India received on 10 April 2017 yet another Note Verbale from the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad conveying that consular access shall be considered
in the light of India’s response to Pakistan’s request (Annex 5) for assistance
in the investigation process.
16. India responded to this on 10 April 2017 itself pointing out that this offer
was being reiterated after the death sentence had been confirmed — the information
of which was given in a press briefing by Pakistan. India stated that this offer
“underlines the farcical nature of the proceedings and so-called
trial by a Pakistan
military court martial”. India pointed out that despite its repeated requests, consular
access had not been allowed.
17. A press statement was made by the Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan
on Foreign Affairs on 14 April 2017 (Annex 6). This press statement establishes
the following facts:
(a) After his alleged arrest, a “confessional video statement” was recorded on
25 March 2016. The FIR was, however, registered only on 8 April 2016.
(b) The accused was interrogated in May 2016, and in July 2016, a confessional
statement by the accused was recorded before a magistrate.
(c) The Court Martial recorded the summary of evidence on 24 September 2016,
and in four proceedings culminating on 12 February 2017, the trial was over.
(d) In the course of the trial, the accused “was allowed to ask questions from the
witnesses”, and “a law qualified field officer was provided to defend him
throughout the court proceedings”.
9
11. Dans une note verbale datée du 21 mars 2017 (annexe 3), le Pakistan lui a
indiqué que « la possibilité de communiquer par l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires
[avec M. Jadhav] … ser[ait] étudiée à la lumière de la suite qu’elle donner[ait]
à la demande d’assistance aux fins d’enquête et de célérité de la justice formulée par
le Pakistan ».
12. Les faits relatifs à la présente affaire exposés ci‑dessus, et notamment la note
verbale du 21 mars 2017, démontrent que le Pakistan a manqué de manière flagrante
aux obligations que lui impose la convention de Vienne, qui ne prévoit
aucune exception au droit d’un Etat de communiquer avec ses ressortissants par
l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires énoncé à l’article 36. Le seul fait de subordonner
ce droit à l’octroi de l’assistance aux fins d’enquête sollicitée par le Pakistan
constitue une violation grave de la convention de Vienne.
13. L’Inde a répondu à cette note verbale le 31 mars 2017, soulignant que « le
fait d’être autorisée à communiquer avec M. Jadhav par l’entremise de ses autorités
consulaires [était] une condition préalable essentielle pour établir les faits et
comprendre les circonstances de la présence de l’intéressé au Pakistan ». L’Inde
disposait d’informations selon lesquelles M. Jadhav aurait été enlevé en Iran, où il
se livrait à des activités commerciales après avoir pris sa retraite de la marine
indienne ; le Pakistan a affirmé qu’il avait été arrêté au Baloutchistan. Ces éléments
demandaient à être vérifiés, ce qui supposait avant tout que l’Inde puisse communiquer
avec l’intéressé.
14. Dans un communiqué de presse du 10 avril 2017, le bureau de relations
publiques de l’armée pakistanaise a déclaré ce qui suit au sujet de M. Jadhav :
« L’espion a été jugé par une cour martiale générale en application de la loi sur
l’armée pakistanaise, et condamné à mort. Le général Qamar Javed Bajwa, chef
d’état‑major de l’armée, a confirmé ce jour cette condamnation à mort prononcée
par la cour martiale générale. » (Annexe 4.)
15. Le 10 avril 2017, l’Inde a reçu une nouvelle note verbale du ministère des
affaires étrangères du Pakistan, indiquant que la possibilité, pour ses autorités consulaires,
d’entrer en communication avec l’intéressé serait étudiée à la lumière de la suite
qu’elle donnerait à la demande d’assistance aux fins d’enquête du Pakistan (annexe 5).
16. L’Inde a répondu à cette note verbale le même jour, précisant que cette proposition,
déjà formulée, intervenait alors que la condamnation à mort de son ressortissant
avait été confirmée — information qui avait été donnée lors d’un point
de presse. Estimant que cela « soulign[ait] que la procédure et le prétendu procès
devant une cour martiale pakistanaise n’étaient qu’un simulacre », l’Inde a rappelé
que, en dépit de ses demandes répétées, ses autorités consulaires n’avaient pas été
autorisées à entrer en communication avec l’intéressé.
17. Le 14 avril 2017, un conseiller pour les affaires étrangères auprès du premier
ministre du Pakistan a fait une déclaration à la presse (annexe 6). Les éléments
suivants ressortent de cette déclaration :
a) Après la prétendue arrestation de M. Jadhav, un « enregistrement vidéo des
aveux » de l’intéressé a été réalisé le 25 mars 2016. Le document FIR n’a cependant
été établi que le 8 avril 2016.
b) L’accusé a été interrogé en mai 2016, ses aveux ayant été recueillis en présence
d’un magistrat au mois de juillet 2016.
c) La cour martiale a consigné le résumé des éléments de preuve le 24 septembre
2016, et a jugé l’accusé lors de quatre audiences, dont la dernière s’est
tenue le 12 février 2017.
d) L’accusé « a eu la possibilité de poser des questions aux témoins » qui ont été
entendus, et « un officier supérieur, juriste qualifié, a été commis pour assurer sa
défense pendant toute la durée du procès ».
10
18. The last proceeding in the case was, as per this statement, on 12 February
2017. It is obvious that by 21 March 2017, even the conditional consular access [to
be granted post arrest, and in the course of the trial] that was offered by Pakistan
had in any event became meaningless as the trial stood concluded.
19. India states that these facts establish beyond any shadow of doubt that in
conducting the trial without informing the accused of his rights under the Vienna
Convention and granting consular access to India, Pakistan has conducted itself in
a manner that constitutes an egregious violation of the Vienna Convention.
In a briefing on 17 April 2017, on behalf of the Government of Pakistan, the
authorized spokesperson said that the Indian national is not eligible for consular
access nor will he be granted consular access (Annex 7). It is clear, that the provisions
of the Vienna Convention have been violated, and the ongoing conduct of
Pakistan continues to be in defiance of the provisions of the Convention.
20. On 19 April, India yet again handed over a Note Verbale (see Annex 1) to
Pakistan [through its High Commission in New Delhi] seeking copies of the charge
sheet, proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, the summary of evidence and the
judgment.
In addition to seeking [once again] consular access, it also asked
Pakistan
to:
(a) share the procedure for the appeal;
(b) facilitate the appointment of a defence lawyer, and facilitate the contact with
the High Commission of India in Islamabad;
(c) provide certified copies of medical reports;
(d) issue visas to the family of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav to visit Pakistan.
21. In order to pursue legal remedies available under the Pakistan Army Act
1952, howsoever circumscribed they may prove to be, the parents of Mr. Jadhav
applied for Pakistani visas on 25 April 2017. This application was made through
the offices of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Union of India. No response
on these applications has been received by them to date.
22. The family of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav has filed an appeal under
Section
133 B and a petition to the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section
131 of the Pakistan Army Act 1952. The appeal and the petition were handed
over by the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad to Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary
in Islamabad on 26 April 2017. During this meeting, the representatives of
India once again sought consular access to Mr. Jadhav (see Annex 1). This appeal
has been filed based on information available in public domain, as no particulars
of the charges, the evidence or the verdict have been provided by Pakistan. Without
consular access and the access to all this information, there can be no effective
appeal and even the right to appeal would be as farcical as the trial.
23. The External Affairs Minister of India wrote a letter to the Adviser to the
Pakistan Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs on 27 April 2017 (Annex 8) in which
she reiterated the requests for certified copies of the chargesheet
against
Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, the sum-
11
18. Au vu de cette déclaration, la dernière audience en l’affaire a eu lieu le
12 février 2017. Il est donc évident que, à la date du 21 mars 2017, même le droit
conditionnel de communiquer avec l’accusé par l’entremise des autorités consulaires
indiennes [qui aurait dû être accordé dès après l’arrestation et au cours du
procès], tel que proposé par le Pakistan, était devenu vain, puisque le procès était
terminé.
19. Selon l’Inde, ces éléments établissent sans l’ombre d’un doute que, en
conduisant ce procès sans informer l’accusé des droits que lui confère la convention
de Vienne ni donner aux autorités consulaires indiennes la possibilité de communiquer
avec lui, le Pakistan a adopté un comportement qui constitue une grave
violation de ladite convention.
Au cours d’une conférence de presse donnée le 17 avril 2017, le porte‑parole du
Gouvernement pakistanais a indiqué que le ressortissant indien ne remplissait pas
les conditions requises pour pouvoir communiquer avec ses autorités consulaires,
et que ce droit ne lui serait pas accordé (annexe 7). Il apparaît donc clairement que
les dispositions de la convention de Vienne ont été violées et que le comportement
persistant du Pakistan demeure contraire à ces dispositions.
20. Le 19 avril, l’Inde a de nouveau adressé une note verbale au Pakistan [par
l’entremise de son haut‑commissariat à New Delhi] (voir annexe 1), dans laquelle
elle demandait à obtenir copie de l’acte d’accusation, des procès-verbaux
relatifs à
l’enquête, du résumé des élément de preuve et de la décision. En plus de solliciter
(une nouvelle fois) le droit de communiquer avec l’accusé par l’entremise de ses
autorités consulaires, l’Inde demandait au Pakistan de :
a) la laisser prendre part à la procédure d’appel ;
b) faciliter la désignation d’un avocat de la défense, ainsi que la communication
avec le haut‑commissariat de l’Inde à Islamabad ;
c) fournir des copies certifiées conformes des rapports médicaux de l’intéressé ;
d) délivrer des visas aux membres de la famille de M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav
pour qu’ils puissent se rendre au Pakistan.
21. Afin d’exercer les recours en justice — si limités soient‑ils — auxquels la loi
sur l’armée pakistanaise de 1952 ouvre droit, les parents de M. Jadhav ont, le
25 avril 2017, déposé une demande de visas auprès de l’administration pakistanaise.
Cette demande a été présentée par l’intermédiaire du ministère des affaires
étrangères de l’Union indienne. A ce jour, elle est restée sans réponse.
22. La famille de M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav a formé un appel en vertu
de l’article 133 B de la loi sur l’armée pakistanaise de 1952, et introduit un
recours auprès du Gouvernement du Pakistan en vertu de l’article 131 de cette
même loi. Cet appel et ce recours ont été remis par le haut-commissaire
indien à
Islamabad au secrétaire d’Etat aux affaires étrangères du Pakistan lors d’une
réunion
tenue le 26 avril 2017, au cours de laquelle les représentants de l’Inde
ont une fois encore demandé que les autorités consulaires indiennes soient autorisées
à communiquer avec M. Jadhav (voir annexe 1). L’appel a été formé sur la
base d’informations publiquement accessibles, le Pakistan n’ayant fourni aucun
élément concernant les charges retenues contre l’intéressé, les éléments de
preuve ou le verdict. Sans possibilité de communiquer avec l’accusé et d’accéder à
toutes ces informations, la décision rendue ne saurait être efficacement contestée
et le droit même de faire appel semble, à l’image du procès, n’être qu’un
simulacre.
23. Par lettre du 27 avril 2017 adressée au conseiller pour les affaires étrangères
auprès du premier ministre du Pakistan (annexe 8), la ministre des affaires étrangères
de l’Inde a, une nouvelle fois, demandé à se voir communiquer des copies
certifiées conformes de l’acte d’accusation établi contre M. Kulbhushan
12
mary of evidence in the case, the judgment, appointment of a defence lawyer and
his contact details and a certified copy of the medical report of Mr. Jadhav. She
also reiterated the request for the visa for the parents of Mr. Jadhav. She sought
the personal intervention of the Adviser in the matter. No response has been
received to this missive.
24. India, therefore, submits that a case is made out of violation of treaty rights
and India therefore seeks to apply to this Court for appropriate relief including by
way of restitution.
III. Jurisdiction of the Court
25. Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court confers upon this Court the jurisdiction
to decide “all matters specially provided for . . . in treaties and conventions
in force”.
26. India and Pakistan are Members of the United Nations and thus ipso facto
parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. They are also parties to
the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol concerning
Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Both States have accepted the Convention
and the Optional Protocol without any reservation.
27. Article I of the Optional Protocol provides that,
“Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention
shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made
by any party to the dispute being a Party to the present Protocol.”
28. India brings this case against Pakistan before the Court for violation of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations based on the jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article I of the
Optional Protocol on Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
29. Both India and Pakistan have also accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court under paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute subject to declarations in
which “they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in
relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the
Court . . .” in legal disputes relating to, amongst other things, interpretation of
treaties or questions of international law.
30. However, India is invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under paragraph 1
of Article 36 where treaties or conventions especially provide for the jurisdiction of
the Court. In such cases, the declarations made by the parties under paragraph 2
of Article 36 — or any reservations in such declarations are not applicable.
31. This issue is no longer res integra. In the case concerning Border and Transborder
Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), this Court came to the conclusion
that the Pact of Bogota created jurisdiction independent of the declarations of
compulsory jurisdiction as may have been made under Article 36, paragraph 2
(I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 88, para. 41).
32. In the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v.
Pakistan), apart from questioning the competence of the Court under Article 84 of
the Chicago Convention and Article II, Section 2, of the Transit Agreement (called
13
Sudhir
Jadhav,
des procès-verbaux
relatifs à l’enquête, du résumé des éléments de
preuve versés au dossier, du jugement, de l’acte de désignation de l’avocat de la
défense et des informations relatives à ce dernier, ainsi que du rapport médical
concernant M. Jadhav ; elle a par ailleurs réitéré la demande de visas introduite par
les parents de M. Jadhav. La ministre a prié le conseiller d’intervenir personnellement
dans cette affaire. Sa lettre n’a reçu aucune réponse.
24. En conséquence, l’Inde fait valoir que la violation de droits conventionnels
est établie en la présente espèce, et en appelle à la Cour pour obtenir les remèdes
appropriés, y compris par voie de restitution.
III. Compétence de la Cour
25. Le paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 du Statut de la Cour confère à celle‑ci compétence
pour connaître de « tous les cas spécialement prévus … dans les traités et
conventions en vigueur ».
26. L’Inde et le Pakistan sont Membres de l’Organisation des Nations Unies
et donc, ipso facto, parties au Statut de la Cour. Ils sont également parties à
la convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires et à son protocole de signature
facultative concernant le règlement obligatoire des différends. Les deux Etats
ont accepté la convention et le protocole de signature facultative sans aucune
réserve.
27. L’article premier du protocole de signature facultative est ainsi libellé :
« Les différends relatifs à l’interprétation ou à l’application de la Convention
relèvent de la compétence obligatoire de la Cour internationale de Justice
et peuvent en conséquence être portés devant la Cour par une requête de toute
partie au différend qui sera elle-même partie au présent Protocole. »
28. L’Inde introduit la présente instance contre le Pakistan pour violation de
la convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires en fondant la compétence
de la Cour sur le paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 de son Statut et l’article premier
du protocole
de signature facultative concernant le règlement obligatoire des
différends.
29. L’Inde et le Pakistan ont également accepté la juridiction obligatoire de la
Cour en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 36 de son Statut au moyen de déclarations
par lesquelles ils « reconna[issent] comme obligatoire de plein droit et sans
convention spéciale, à l’égard de tout autre Etat acceptant la même obligation,
la[dite] juridiction… » sur les différends juridiques portant notamment sur l’interprétation
des traités ou des points de droit international.
30. En la présente espèce, l’Inde fonde toutefois la compétence de la Cour sur le
paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 du Statut, qui précise que cette compétence est expressément
prévue par certains traités et conventions. En pareils cas, les déclarations
faites en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 36 ou toute réserve qui y serait formulée
sont inapplicables.
31. Cette question n’est désormais plus res integra. Dans l’affaire relative à des
Actions armées frontalières et transfrontalières (Nicaragua c. Honduras), la Cour
est parvenue à la conclusion que le pacte de Bogotá lui conférait compétence indépendamment
des déclarations d’acceptation de sa juridiction obligatoire qui pouvaient
avoir été faites en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 36 (C.I.J. Recueil 1988,
p. 88, par. 41).
32. Dans l’affaire de l’Appel concernant la compétence du Conseil de l’OACI (Inde
c. Pakistan), outre qu’il contestait la compétence de la Cour au titre de l’article 84
de la convention de Chicago et de la section 2 de l’article II de l’accord de transit
14
“the jurisdictional clauses of the Treaties”), Pakistan also relied on India’s reservation
to her acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction under paragraph 2 of
Article 36. The Court held that:
“the various objections made to the competence of the Court cannot be sustained,
whether they are based on the alleged inapplicability of the Treaties as
such, or of their jurisdictional clauses. Since therefore the Court is invested
with jurisdiction under those clauses and, in consequence (see paragraphs
14-16 above), under Article 36, paragraph 1, and under Article 37, of
its Statute, it becomes irrelevant to consider the objections to other possible
bases of jurisdiction.” (I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 60, para. 25.)
33. In the LaGrand case (Germany v. United States of America) (Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 466), this Court accepted — as it was not a matter put in
issue — that the application filed by the Federal Republic of Germany for violation
of the Vienna Convention was based on the jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article I of the Optional
Protocol. Similarly, in the Avena case (Mexico v. United States of America) (Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 12), this Court noted in its judgment that Mexico
based the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court and on Article I of the Optional Protocol concerning the compulsory settlement
of disputes. The jurisdiction of this Court to entertain applications for relief
in cases of breach of the Vienna Convention thus is not in doubt.
IV. The Vienna Convention
34. Article 36 of the Vienna Convention was negotiated and adopted by the
States, to set up amongst other things standards of conduct through an International
Convention on Consular Relations, particularly concerning communication
and contact with nationals of the Sending State which would contribute to the
development of friendly relations amongst nations. Article 36 of the Convention
specifically confers rights upon the States under subarticles (a) and (c) of Article
36, paragraph 1, and confers rights upon nationals of States, arrested, detained
or put on trial in another State.
35. The provisions of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention were first interpreted
by this Court in the LaGrand case. This Court held,
“Article 36, paragraph 1, establishes an interrelated régime designed to
facilitate the implementation of the system of consular protection. It begins
with the basic principles governing consular protection; the right of communication
and access (Art. 36, para. 1 (a)). This clause is followed by the provision
which spells out the modalities of consular notification (Art. 36,
para. 1 (b)). Finally Article 36, paragraph 1 (c), sets out the measures consular
officers may take in rendering consular assistance to their nationals
in the custody of the receiving State.”) (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001,
p. 492, para. 74.)
36. In the Avena case, this Court was again called upon to interpret Article
36. It held that
“Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), contains three separate but interrelated elements:
the right of the individual concerned to be informed without delay of
15
(dénommés « clauses juridictionnelles des Traités »), le Pakistan invoquait la réserve
dont l’Inde avait assorti sa déclaration d’acceptation de la juridiction obligatoire de
la Cour en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l’article 36. La Cour avait conclu que
« les objections à [s]a juridiction … ne sauraient être retenues, qu’elles se
fondent sur la prétendue inapplicabilité des Traités en tant que tels ou sur celle
de leurs clauses juridictionnelles. La Cour ayant donc compétence en vertu de
ces clauses et par suite (voir paragraphes 14‑16) en vertu de l’article 36, paragraphe
1, et de l’article 37 de son Statut, il est sans pertinence d’examiner
les objections visant d’autres fondements possibles de sa compétence. »
(C.I.J. Recueil 1972, p. 60, par. 25.)
33. Dans l’affaire LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique) (arrêt, C.I.J.
Recueil 2001, p. 466), la Cour a admis — étant donné qu’il ne s’agissait pas d’une
question dont elle était saisie — que la République fédérale d’Allemagne, dans la
requête qu’elle avait présentée pour violation de la convention de Vienne, avait
fondé sa compétence sur le paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 du Statut et l’article premier
du protocole de signature facultative. De la même manière, dans l’affaire
Avena (Mexique c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique) (arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2004 (I),
p. 12), la Cour a relevé dans son arrêt que le Mexique avait fondé sa compétence
sur le paragraphe premier de l’article 36 du Statut et sur l’article premier du protocole
de signature facultative. La compétence de la Cour pour connaître de réclamations
formulées à raison de violations de la convention de Vienne ne fait donc
aucun doute.
IV. La convention de Vienne
34. L’article 36 de la convention de Vienne a été négocié et adopté par les Etats
afin d’établir notamment, dans le cadre d’une convention internationale sur les
relations consulaires, des normes de conduite régissant, en particulier, la communication
avec les ressortissants de l’Etat d’envoi, dans le souci de contribuer au
développement de relations amicales entre les nations. L’article 36 de la convention
confère expressément, aux alinéas a) et c) de son paragraphe 1, des droits aux
Etats ; il confère également des droits à leurs ressortissants qui sont arrêtés, placés
en détention ou en instance de jugement dans un autre Etat.
35. La Cour a interprété les dispositions de l’article 36 de la convention de
Vienne pour la première fois dans l’affaire LaGrand. Elle l’a fait en ces termes :
« Le paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 institue un régime dont les divers éléments
sont interdépendants et qui est conçu pour faciliter la mise en oeuvre du système
de protection consulaire. Le principe de base régissant la protection
consulaire est énoncé dès l’abord : le droit de communication et d’accès (alinéa
a) du paragraphe 1 de l’article 36). La disposition suivante précise les
modalités selon lesquelles doit s’effectuer la notification consulaire (alinéa b)
du paragraphe 1 de l’article 36). Enfin, l’alinéa c) du paragraphe 1 de l’article
36 énonce les mesures que les agents consulaires peuvent prendre pour
fournir leur assistance aux ressortissants de leur pays détenus dans l’Etat de
résidence. » (Arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2001, p. 492, par. 74.)
36. Dans l’affaire Avena, la Cour a de nouveau été appelée à interpréter l’article
36. Elle a jugé que
« [l’]alinéa [b) de son paragraphe 1] cont[enait] trois éléments distincts mais
liés entre eux : le droit de l’intéressé d’être informé sans retard des droits qui
16
his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b); the right of the consular post to
be notified without delay of the individual’s detention, if he so requests; and
the obligation of the receiving State to forward without delay any communication
addressed to the consular post by the detained person.” (Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 43, para. 61.)
37. The facts narrated in the previous section establish that Pakistan had failed
to inform the accused of his rights. The conduct of Pakistan, including at one time
a suggestion that the Indian national was not entitled to any rights, also establishes
that the accused was denied his consular access rights under Article 36, paragraph
1 (b), of the Convention.
38. India was informed of the detention of the Indian national much after his
detention. India sought consular access incessantly. Considerably late in the day —
after the trial had been concluded — Pakistan put a condition that India first
accedes to its request for investigation in India. Such a condition is in violation of
the Vienna Convention. Even this conditional offer came at a time when the trial
had already been concluded.
39. It is obvious from the facts, which are in the present case indisputable, that
Pakistan has denied India consular rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and
(c), of the Vienna Convention.
40. The rights conferred by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention are sacrosanct.
These rights are also enforceable as held by this Court in the Avena case in paragraph
40, that “violations of the rights of the individual under Article 36 may
entail a violation of the rights of the sending State, and that violation of the rights
of the latter may entail a violation of the rights of the individual”. On this basis,
this Court held that the sending State (in that case Mexico) could submit a claim in
its own name and request the Court to rule on the violation of rights which it
claimed to have suffered both directly and through the violation of the individual
rights conferred on Mexican nationals.
41. Where there is a violation of a right under the Convention, this Court would
have the power and the jurisdiction to provide suitable relief including a relief by
way of restitution.
42. As explained in greater detail in the section under relief, in the present case,
this Court would have the jurisdiction to, and the facts of the case demand that this
Court does, set aside the conviction of the Indian national. Alternatively, this
Court may, as a measure of restitution, direct Pakistan to take such steps as may
be necessary to set aside the conviction of the accused Indian national. This Court
may also direct a fresh investigation, after consular access is provided, and in the
circumstances of this case also direct Pakistan to conduct the trial under their ordinary
judicial system.
43. Pakistan has, in a press briefing on 20 April 2017 (Annex 9), referred to a
bilateral agreement on consular access between India and Pakistan, concluded in
2008 (Annex 10) and suggested that the matter of consular access between the two
countries is exhaustively dealt with in this bilateral agreement.
44. This argument lacks merit both because of the express provisions of the
Vienna Convention, as well as the plain language of the Agreement on Consular
Access signed between the two countries on 21 May 2008.
45. In the Agreement, which was entered into for “furthering the objective of
humane treatment of nationals of either country arrested detained or imprisoned
17
lui sont reconnus par ledit alinéa ; le droit du poste consulaire de recevoir sans
retard notification de la mise en détention de l’intéressé, si ce dernier en fait la
demande ; et l’obligation de l’Etat de résidence de transmettre sans retard
toute communication adressée au poste consulaire par la personne détenue »
(arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2004 (I), p. 43, par. 61).
37. Les faits exposés dans la section précédente permettent d’établir que le
Pakistan a manqué d’informer l’accusé de ses droits. Le comportement du Pakistan,
notamment en ce que celui‑ci a pu donner à entendre que le ressortissant
indien n’avait aucun droit, permet également d’établir que l’intéressé s’est vu
dénier celui de communiquer avec ses autorités consulaires que lui garantit l’alinéa
b) du paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 de la convention.
38. L’Inde a été informée fort tardivement du placement en détention de son
ressortissant, et n’a eu de cesse, dès lors, d’entrer en contact avec lui par l’entremise
de ses autorités consulaires. Ce n’est qu’à un stade très avancé — après que le procès
eut pris fin — que le Pakistan a accepté, à une condition : que l’Inde commence
par l’autoriser à enquêter sur son territoire. Cette condition constitue une violation
de la convention de Vienne. De surcroît, elle a été formulée alors que le procès était
déjà achevé.
39. Il ressort clairement des faits, lesquels sont en l’espèce incontestables, que le
Pakistan a dénié à l’Inde les droits consulaires que lui garantissent les alinéas a) et
c) du paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 de la convention de Vienne.
40. Les droits conférés par l’article 36 de la convention de Vienne sont sacro-saints.
Ces droits sont en outre opposables, ainsi que l’a constaté la Cour au paragraphe
40 de son arrêt en l’affaire Avena : « [T]oute violation des droits que l’individu
tient de l’article 36 risque d’entraîner une violation des droits de 1’Etat d’envoi
et … toute violation des droits de ce dernier risque de conduire à une violation des
droits de l’individu. » Sur cette base, la Cour a estimé que l’Etat d’envoi (en l’occurrence
le Mexique) pouvait soumettre une demande en son nom propre et la prier de
statuer sur la violation des droits dont il soutenait avoir été victime à la fois directement
et à travers la violation des droits individuels conférés à ses ressortissants.
41. Lorsqu’il y a violation d’un droit reconnu par la convention, il est du pouvoir
et du ressort de la Cour d’apporter le remède approprié, y compris sous forme
de restitution.
42. Comme cela est expliqué plus en détail dans la section intitulée « Mesures
demandées », en l’espèce, la Cour aurait la compétence requise pour infirmer la
condamnation du ressortissant indien, et les faits de l’affaire commandent qu’elle
le fasse. Une autre solution consisterait pour la Cour, en guise de restitution, à
prescrire au Pakistan de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour que cette condamnation
soit infirmée. La Cour peut également prescrire au Pakistan de procéder à une
nouvelle enquête, une fois rendue possible la communication entre le ressortissant
indien et ses autorités consulaires, et lui enjoindre en outre, compte tenu des circonstances
de l’affaire, de veiller à ce que l’intéressé soit jugé par des juridictions de
droit commun.
43. Lors d’une conférence de presse accordée le 20 avril 2017 (annexe 9), le Pakistan
a fait référence à un accord bilatéral sur la communication des autorités consulaires
avec les ressortissants de l’Etat d’envoi conclu en 2008 avec l’Inde (annexe 10),
en indiquant que cet accord régissait entièrement la question entre les deux pays.
44. Cet argument est infondé au regard tant des dispositions expresses de la
convention de Vienne que des termes mêmes de cet accord bilatéral signé le
21 mai 2008.
45. Dans cet instrument, conclu afin de « renforcer l’objectif consistant à garantir
un traitement humain aux ressortissants de chacun des deux Etats en cas d’ar-
18
in the other country”, the two signatory States, India and Pakistan, agreed to certain
measures. They included release and repatriation of persons within one month
of confirmation of their national status and completion of sentences. The Agreement
recognized that in case of arrest, detention or sentence made on political or
security grounds, each side may examine the case on its own merits, and that in
special cases which call for or require compassionate and humanitarian considerations,
each side may exercise its discretion subject to its laws and regulations to
allow early release and repatriation of persons. India is not seeking reinforcement
of this Agreement nor is it basing its claim on any rights or obligations under it.
46. India’s claim is based solely upon the Vienna Convention. Article 73 of the
Vienna Convention recognizes that there may be other international agreements in
force as between the parties, and that nothing in the Convention “shall preclude
States from concluding international agreements confirming or supplementing or
extending or amplifying the provisions thereof”.
47. The existence of a bilateral agreement, some of the provisions of which may
appear to supplement or amplify the provisions of the Vienna Convention is thus
irrelevant to an assertion of rights of consular access under the Vienna Convention.
This is also consistent with Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties which recognizes the principle that two or more parties could modify
the terms of the Treaty as long as the Treaty permits such modification or at least
does not prohibit such modification, and that any such modification cannot relate
to a provision, the derogation from which is incompatible with the effective execution
of the object and purpose of the Treaty as a whole.
48. The Vienna Convention creates specific rights in favour of States and in
favour of the nationals of Sending States in relation to consular access — and creates
corresponding obligations upon Receiving States that arrest, detain or try and
sentence nationals of other Member States. Bilateral treaties which create obligations
can only supplement the provisions of the Vienna Convention and cannot
modify these rights and corresponding obligations which form the object and purpose
of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.
V. The Claims of India
49. The Government of India claims that under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention,
Pakistan was under an international legal obligation to India, a party to
the Convention, to comply with the rights of consular access under sub-paragraphs
(a) and (c) of paragraph 1 of Article 36. Pakistan was also under an
obligation under international law and the Vienna Convention to inform the
Indian national of his rights under paragraph (b) of Article 36 (1).
50. Despite persistent and repeated requests by India, Pakistan has brazenly
refused consular access until March 2017 — by which time the trial was concluded.
This trial has been concluded in violation of the rights under the Vienna Convention
and stands vitiated. That is more so for the reason that the trial has been
conducted not in accordance with the general law applicable to criminal trials in
the regular courts, but has been conducted by way of a military Court Martial.
19
restation, de détention ou d’emprisonnement sur le territoire de l’autre », l’Inde et
le Pakistan sont convenus de certaines mesures, notamment de libérer et de rapatrier
les intéressés un mois au plus tard après expiration de leur peine et confirmation
de leur nationalité. Les signataires reconnaissaient que, en cas d’arrestation,
de détention ou de condamnation pour des motifs politiques ou relatifs à la sécurité,
chacun d’eux pourrait examiner l’affaire au fond et, dans les circonstances
spéciales requérant de faire preuve de compassion et d’humanité, exercer son pouvoir
discrétionnaire, en tant que permis par ses lois et règlements, pour autoriser
une libération et un rapatriement anticipés. L’Inde ne demande pas le renforcement
des dispositions de cet accord et ne fonde pas davantage sa demande sur des
droits ou obligations qui en découleraient.
46. La demande de l’Inde est uniquement fondée sur la convention de Vienne.
L’article 73 de cet instrument reconnaît qu’il peut exister d’autres accords internationaux
en vigueur dans les rapports entre les parties et qu’aucune disposition de la
convention « ne saurait empêcher les Etats de conclure des accords internationaux
confirmant, complétant ou développant ses dispositions, ou étendant leur champ
d’application ».
47. L’existence d’un accord bilatéral, dont certaines dispositions peuvent sembler
compléter ou développer celles de la convention de Vienne, n’a donc pas à
entrer en considération lorsqu’un Etat entend faire valoir les droits garantis par la
convention en matière de communication de ses autorités consulaires avec ses ressortissants.
L’article 41 de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités va du
reste dans le même sens, qui reconnaît le principe selon lequel deux ou plusieurs
parties peuvent modifier les termes d’un traité pour autant qu’une telle modification
soit possible ou, à tout le moins, ne soit pas interdite en vertu de celui‑ci, et
qu’elle ne porte pas sur une disposition à laquelle il ne peut être dérogé sans qu’il y
ait incompatibilité avec la réalisation effective de l’objet et du but du traité pris
dans son ensemble.
48. La convention de Vienne crée pour les Etats d’envoi et leurs ressortissants
des droits exprès en matière de communication par l’entremise des autorités consulaires,
et crée à la charge des Etats de résidence qui arrêtent, placent en détention
ou jugent et condamnent les ressortissants d’autres Etats parties des obligations
correspondantes. Les traités bilatéraux qui créeraient des obligations ne peuvent
que compléter les dispositions de la convention de Vienne et ne sauraient modifier
ces droits ni les obligations correspondantes, qui participent de la réalisation de
l’objet et du but de l’article 36 de cet instrument.
V. Les demandes de l’Inde
49. Le Gouvernement indien affirme que le Pakistan, au regard de l’article 36 de
la convention de Vienne, avait envers l’Inde, qui est partie à cette convention,
l’obligation juridique internationale de respecter les droits relatifs à la communication
entre un ressortissant et ses autorités consulaires garantis aux alinéas a) et c)
du paragraphe 1 dudit article. Le Pakistan était aussi tenu, au regard du droit
international et de la convention de Vienne, ainsi que prévu en son article 36, paragraphe
1 b), d’informer le ressortissant indien de ses droits.
50. En dépit des demandes répétées que l’Inde ne s’est pas fait faute de lui adresser,
le Pakistan a eu l’aplomb de refuser à ses autorités consulaires et à son ressortissant
la possibilité de communiquer jusqu’en mars 2017 — à un moment où le
procès avait déjà pris fin. Ce procès, dans le cadre duquel les droits prévus par la
convention de Vienne ont été violés, est vicié, et il l’est d’autant plus qu’il ne s’est
pas déroulé sous le régime du droit général applicable aux procédures pénales
20
These trials under the law applicable to them are summary in nature. And indisputably,
a confession by the accused while in Pakistani custody has been taken into
account in the course of the trial — which confession was recorded after India had
sought consular access.
51. Pursuant to Article 36, subparagraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention,
Pakistan is under the international legal obligation to the Indian national to allow
him consular access and also the right to receive assistance from India in the
ongoing
proceedings.
52. Pakistan continues to deny consular access to the Indian national. It is not
even known whether an appeal has been filed by Mr. Jadhav, and if filed has
already been heard. Pakistan steadfastly refuses to share any information about
the accused.
53. The trial had been conducted under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The
accused, it appears from the statement of 14 April 2017, was tried by a Field General
Court Martial. While the rules of evidence are the same as those prevalent in
criminal courts, the personnel who manned the Court Martial are three military
officers. The decision of the Court Martial, under Section 105, is by an absolute
majority of votes, and in the event a death sentence is to be awarded it has to be
unanimous.
54. Section 84 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, confers the power to convene a
Field General Court Martial upon an officer empowered in this behalf by an order
of the Federal Government or of the Chief of Army Staff. The confirmation of a
death sentence awarded in a Field General Court Martial is by the convening
officer or by an authority superior to him. The only information available in the
present case as to the state of play, is what was in the press statement by the Adviser
to the Prime Minister of Pakistan which said that the accused was tried by a
Field General Court Martial under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
Section 59 extends the Army Act in its application to persons who in or beyond
Pakistan commit any “civil offence”. It did not state the designation of the convening
officer or the officer who “endorsed” the sentence on 10 April 2017.
55. A petition to the Federal Government is provided under Section 131. Under
Section 133 B, the Court of Appeal is to consist, in cases of award of death sentence
after 1992, of the Chief of Army Staff or one or more of the officers designated
by him in this behalf and presided by an officer not below the rank of Brigadier
in the case of a Field General Court Martial as in this case. The decision of the
Court of Appeal is final and cannot be called in question before any court or other
authority.
56. The mother of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav filed an appeal under Section
133 B and a petition to the Federal Government of Pakistan under Section 131
of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. The appeal and the petition here handed over to
the Pakistan Government by the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad on
26 April 2017.
57. In the present case, India submits that even if, an appeal is available under
the Statute, it is an illusory remedy. Some of the circumstances that establish that
this remedy is worthless in the present case are as follows:
(a) The death sentence stands confirmed by the Chief of Army Staff. An appeal
before a tribunal presided over by him or officers’ junior to him would be an
appeal from Caesar to Caesar. A news report of 18 April 2017 in the Dawn
states that an appeal process is under way and the appellate tribunal would be
21
devant des tribunaux réguliers, mais a été confié à une cour martiale. Les procès
relevant de telles juridictions, en vertu de la loi qui leur est applicable, sont forcément
sommaires. Et il est incontestable que des aveux obtenus alors que l’accusé se
trouvait en détention au Pakistan ont été pris en compte dans le cadre de son procès
— lesquels aveux ont été consignés après que l’Inde eut cherché à entrer en
contact avec son ressortissant par l’entremise de ses autorités consulaires.
51. Conformément à l’alinéa b) du paragraphe 1 de l’article 36 de la convention
de Vienne, le Pakistan a, envers le ressortissant indien, l’obligation juridique internationale
de lui permettre de communiquer avec ses autorités consulaires, et de lui
garantir le droit de recevoir de l’Inde une assistance dans le cadre de la procédure
dont il continue de faire l’objet.
52. Le Pakistan refuse toujours de permettre la communication entre le ressortissant
indien et les autorités consulaires. L’Inde ignore même si M. Jadhav a fait
appel et, le cas échéant, si cet appel a déjà été entendu. Le Pakistan refuse obstinément
de partager toute information relative à l’accusé.
53. Le procès s’est déroulé sous le régime de la loi militaire pakistanaise de 1952.
L’accusé, ressort-il de la déclaration du 14 avril 2017, a été jugé par une cour martiale
générale. Celle‑ci, si elle applique les mêmes règles d’administration de la
preuve que les juridictions pénales, se compose de trois officiers de l’armée. Conformément
à l’article 105, elle rend sa décision à la majorité absolue, et toute condamnation
à mort est décidée à l’unanimité.
54. L’article 84 de la loi militaire pakistanaise de 1952 confère le pouvoir de
convoquer une telle cour martiale à un officier ainsi habilité par ordre du Gouvernement
fédéral ou du chef d’état-major de l’armée. C’est ce même officier, ou une
autorité supérieure, qui confirme la condamnation à mort prononcée par cette instance.
Les seules informations dont on dispose en l’espèce quant à l’état de la situation
sont celles qui ont été fournies par le conseiller auprès du premier ministre du
Pakistan dans la déclaration qu’il a faite à la presse, à savoir que l’accusé a été jugé
par une cour martiale générale au titre de l’article 59 de la loi militaire pakistanaise
de 1952. L’article en question étend l’application de la loi militaire à des individus
ayant commis une « infraction civile » au Pakistan ou ailleurs. Aucune indication
n’était donnée sur l’officier ayant convoqué la cour martiale ni celui ayant
« endossé » la condamnation prononcée le 10 avril 2017.
55. L’article 131 prévoit la possibilité d’un recours auprès du Gouvernement fédéral.
En vertu de l’article 133 B, la cour d’appel est constituée — s’agissant des condamnations
à mort prononcées après 1992 et lorsque l’appel concerne, comme c’est le cas
en l’espèce, la décision d’une cour martiale générale — du chef d’état-major de l’armée
ou d’un ou plusieurs officiers désignés par lui à cet effet, et elle est présidée par un
officier ayant au moins le rang de général de brigade. L’arrêt de la cour d’appel est
final et ne peut être contesté devant aucune instance judiciaire ou autre autorité.
56. La mère de M. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav a formé un appel en vertu de
l’article 133 B de la loi de 1952 sur l’armée pakistanaise et introduit un recours
auprès du Gouvernement fédéral du Pakistan en vertu de l’article 131 de cette
même loi. Cet appel et ce recours ont été remis au Gouvernement pakistanais par
le haut‑commissaire de l’Inde à Islamabad le 26 avril 2017.
57. En l’espèce, l’Inde soutient que, même si la possibilité d’interjeter appel est
prévue par la loi, cette voie de recours n’est qu’illusoire, notamment pour les raisons
suivantes :
a) La condamnation à mort a été confirmée par le chef d’état-major de l’armée.
Interjeter appel devant un tribunal présidé soit par le chef d’état-major de l’armée
lui-
même, soit par des officiers qui lui seraient subordonnés, reviendrait à
saisir César contre César. Un article de presse paru le 18 avril 2017 dans le
22
constituted headed by a two-star general. The spokesperson is quoted as having
said that he did not see any chance of the verdict being overturned.
(b) The Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs issued a statement on
14 April 2017 (see Annex 6) in which he asserted that
“all political parties are unanimous that the award of death penalty after
due process and overwhelming evidence to a foreign spy, who was not only
carrying out subversive activities in Pakistan but actually promoting terrorism,
is the correct decision. Second, the whole nation is solidly united
against any threat to Pakistan’s security.”
The official spokesperson for the Government in a press briefing on 17 April
2017 mentioned that the process will move ahead as per law and will go to the
appellate court — it did not clarify whether an appeal had already been filed.
He added “Kulbhushan was sentenced on undeniable evidence, if questioned
on any form, the Pakistan Army will defend their case with all the resources in
light of the undeniable evidence.” (See Annex 7.)
(c) In a case that has created so much controversy, there is more than a reasonable
apprehension that the Court of Appeal presided over by a two-star general of
the Army [who is subordinate to the Chief of Army Staff who has confirmed
the death sentence] — will not act independently, fairly and impartially to the
standards of due process recognized in international law. There can be no faith
or confidence in such a remedy, particularly in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
(d) Further, when the Government of Pakistan has publicly taken such a position,
it defies credulity to believe that a Court of Appeal constituted under the Pakistan
Army Act, 1952 will be so independent and free from pressures so as to
constitute a real and effective remedy.
(e) Even in the course of the appeal, Pakistan has clearly refused consular
access.
(f) A news report [Dawn, 15 April 2017] (Annex 11) in Pakistan newspapers suggests
that the Lahore High Court Bar Association passed a resolution on
14 April 2017 warning lawyers against accepting the brief of convicted “Indian
spy Kulbhushan Jadhav”. The news report suggested that the Bar Association
had decided to cancel the membership of the lawyer(s) found pursuing an
appeal on behalf of this convict in a military court. Thus in all likelihood, even
in appeal Mr. Jadhav will not be able to avail of the assistance of a lawyer.
Pakistan has not responded to India’s request to facilitate the appointment of
a defence lawyer.
VI. Relief
58. India submits that the breach of the Vienna Convention is admitted in the
Note Verbale by Pakistan on 21 March 2017, which for the first time stated that
Pakistan would consider consular access depending on India’s response to the
request for assistance in the investigation. It reiterated this position in its Note
Verbale of 10 April 2017. The press briefing by the official spokesperson of the
23
Dawn indiquait qu’une procédure d’appel était en cours et que la juridiction
saisie serait présidée par un général deux étoiles. Le porte‑parole interrogé
aurait affirmé qu’il ne voyait aucune chance de voir le verdict annulé.
b) Le conseiller pour les affaires étrangères auprès du premier ministre, dans la
déclaration publiée le 14 avril 2017 (annexe 6), a affirmé que,
« de part et d’autre de l’échiquier politique, tous concourent à dire que la
décision, prise au terme d’une procédure équitable et eu égard à des preuves
accablantes, de condamner à la peine capitale un espion étranger qui ne se
contentait pas de se livrer à des activités subversives sur le sol pakistanais,
mais promouvait de fait le terrorisme, [était] justifiée. Par ailleurs, la nation
dans son ensemble est résolument unie face à toute menace contre la sécurité
du Pakistan. »
Le porte-parole
officiel du Gouvernement a indiqué, lors d’une conférence de
presse donnée le 17 avril 2017, que la procédure se poursuivrait conformément
à la loi, avec saisine de la cour d’appel — sans préciser si un appel avait d’ores
et déjà été interjeté. Et d’ajouter : « Kulbhushan a été condamné sur la base
d’éléments de preuve incontestables ; si la décision devait être mise en cause
devant une quelconque instance, l’armée pakistanaise userait en conséquence
de tous les moyens dont elle dispose pour la défendre. » (Annexe 7.)
c) Dans une affaire ayant tant prêté à controverse, il est plus que légitime de
craindre que la cour d’appel présidée par un général deux étoiles (placé sous la
responsabilité hiérarchique du chef d’état-major de l’armée qui a confirmé la
condamnation à mort) n’agira pas de manière indépendante, équitable et
impartiale, en se conformant aux normes garantes de la régularité de la procédure
reconnues en droit international. L’on ne saurait avoir foi ou confiance
dans une telle voie de recours, tout particulièrement compte tenu des faits et des
circonstances de la présente affaire.
d) En outre, alors que le Gouvernement du Pakistan a publiquement exposé la
position mentionnée ci‑dessus, ce serait pécher par excès de crédulité que de
penser qu’une cour d’appel constituée en vertu de la loi militaire pakistanaise de
1952 serait suffisamment indépendante et hermétique aux pressions pour pouvoir
constituer une voie de recours réelle et efficace.
e) Même dans le cadre de la procédure d’appel, le Pakistan a clairement refusé de
permettre au ressortissant et aux autorités consulaires de l’Inde de communiquer.
f) Il ressort d’informations parues dans la presse pakistanaise [Dawn, 15 avril
2017 (annexe 11)] que le barreau de la High Court de Lahore a adopté une résolution,
le 14 avril 2017, par laquelle il mettait en garde les avocats qui seraient
tentés d’assurer la défense de l’accusé « Kulbhushan Jadhav, espion indien », et
menaçait de radiation le ou les avocats qui interjetteraient effectivement appel
en son nom devant un tribunal militaire. Il est donc plus que probable que,
même en appel, M. Jadhav ne soit pas en mesure de se prévaloir de l’assistance
d’un avocat. Le Pakistan n’a pas répondu à la demande de l’Inde visant à faciliter
la commission d’un avocat de la défense.
VI. Mesures demandées
58. L’Inde soutient que la note verbale du 21 mars 2017 emporte reconnaissance
de la violation de la convention de Vienne incriminée ; le Pakistan y déclare pour la
première fois qu’il envisagera de permettre la communication entre le ressortissant
indien et ses autorités consulaires en fonction de la suite que l’Inde réservera à sa
demande d’entraide aux fins d’enquête, ce qu’il a réitéré dans sa note verbale du
24
Government, on 17 April 2017, again asserted the Pakistan position that the
Indian national was not entitled to consular access.
59. India submits that this Court has the power to take all such steps and issue
all such directions as may be necessary, for as held in the Avena case, “it is a principle
of international law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation
to make reparation in an adequate form (Factory at Chorzow, Jurisdiction, Judgment
No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21)” (I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 59,
para. 119).
This Court also held that where obligations accepted by the parties to the Vienna
Convention include commitments as to the conduct of their municipal courts in
relation to nationals of other parties, this Court had jurisdiction to examine the
conduct of the municipal courts and the actions of such courts in the light of international
law to ascertain whether there had been any breaches of the Convention
(ibid., p. 30, para. 28). India, therefore, submits that this Court has the power and
the jurisdiction to mould the relief, to the facts of the present case, to ensure that
this death sentence which has been awarded by a military court, in brazen defiance
of the consular rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and due process
set at nought. This could be achieved by directing Pakistan — to take steps to
annul the decision, and to direct Pakistan not to act on this sentence and conviction,
and to direct the release of the convicted Indian national forthwith.
60. In the circumstances, India seeks the following reliefs:
(1) A relief by way of immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to
the accused.
(2) A relief by way of restitution in integrum by declaring that the sentence of the
military court arrived at, in brazen defiance of the Vienna Convention rights
under Article 36, particularly Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), and in defiance of
elementary human rights of an accused which are also to be given effect as
mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, is violative of international law and the provisions of the
Vienna Convention; and
(3) Restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military
court, and directing it to take steps to annul the decision of the military
court as may be available to it under the law in Pakistan.
(4) If Pakistan is unable to annul the decision, then this Court to declare the decision
illegal being violative of international law and treaty rights and restrain
Pakistan from acting in violation of the Vienna Convention and international
law by giving effect to the sentence or the conviction in any manner, and
directing it to release the convicted Indian national forthwith.
61. The Republic of India reserves its right to amend or supplement this
Application
anytime in future and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
of protection as set forth in the separate request filed along with this Application.
8 May 2017.
(Signed) Dr. Deepak Mittal,
Joint Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Government of India.
25
10 avril 2017. Lors de la conférence de presse du 17 avril 2017, le porte‑parole
officiel du gouvernement a réaffirmé la position du Pakistan déniant au ressortissant
indien le droit de communiquer avec ses autorités consulaires.
59. L’Inde est d’avis que la Cour a le pouvoir de prendre toutes les mesures et de
donner toutes les instructions qui se révéleraient nécessaires : ainsi qu’il a été dit en
l’affaire Avena, « [c]’est un principe de droit international que la violation d’un
engagement entraîne l’obligation de réparer dans une forme adéquate (Usine de
Chorzów, compétence, arrêt no 8, 1927, C.P.J.I. série A no 9, p. 21) » (C.I.J.
Recueil 2004 (I), p. 59, par. 119).
La Cour a également déclaré dans cette affaire que, lorsque, en acceptant les
obligations prescrites par la convention de Vienne, les parties à cet instrument
avaient pris des engagements en ce qui concerne le comportement de leurs juridictions
internes à l’égard des ressortissants des autres parties, elle avait compétence
pour examiner le comportement et les actes de ces juridictions au regard du droit
international pour établir s’il y avait eu violation de la convention (ibid., p. 30,
par. 28). L’Inde soutient en conséquence qu’il est du pouvoir et du ressort de la
Cour d’indiquer des mesures adaptées aux faits de la présente espèce, afin de veiller
à ce que la condamnation à mort, qui a été prononcée par un tribunal militaire au
mépris total des droits consulaires énoncés à l’article 36 de la convention de Vienne
ainsi que des garanties d’une procédure régulière, soit considérée comme non
avenue.
La Cour pourrait parvenir à ce résultat en prescrivant au Pakistan de
prendre des mesures pour annuler la décision, de s’abstenir de donner effet à cette
condamnation et de libérer sans délai le ressortissant indien qui en fait l’objet.
60. Dans ces circonstances, l’Inde demande :
1) que la condamnation à mort prononcée à l’encontre de l’accusé soit immédiatement
suspendue ;
2) que lui soit accordée restitutio in integrum, sous la forme d’une déclaration
constatant que la condamnation à laquelle est parvenu le tribunal militaire au
mépris total des droits énoncés à l’article 36 de la convention de Vienne, notamment
en son paragraphe 1 b), et des droits humains élémentaires de tout accusé,
auxquels il convient également de donner effet ainsi qu’exigé à l’article 14 du
Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques de 1966, est contraire au
droit international et aux dispositions de la convention de Vienne ;
3) qu’il soit prescrit au Pakistan de ne pas donner effet à la condamnation prononcée
par le tribunal militaire et de prendre les mesures qui pourraient être prévues
par le droit pakistanais pour annuler la décision de ce tribunal ;
4) que cette décision, dans le cas où le Pakistan ne serait pas en mesure de l’annuler,
soit déclarée illicite en tant que contraire au droit international et aux droits
conventionnels, et qu’injonction soit faite au Pakistan de s’abstenir de violer la
convention de Vienne sur les relations consulaires et le droit international en
donnant d’une quelconque façon effet à la condamnation, ainsi que de libérer
sans délai le ressortissant indien qui en fait l’objet.
61. La République de l’Inde se réserve le droit de modifier ou de compléter à
tout moment la requête et prie la Cour d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires, ainsi
qu’il est exposé dans la demande distincte qu’elle a déposée à cet effet en même
temps que la présente requête.
Le 8 mai 2017.
Le Joint Secretary
du ministère des affaires étrangères
du Gouvernement de l’Inde,
(Signé) M. Deepak Mittal.
26
1
LIST OF ANNEXES*
Annex 1. Notes Verbale issued by India on 25 March 2016, 30 March 2016,
6 May 2016, 10 June 2016, 11 July 2016, 26 July 2016, 22 August 2016,
3 November 2016, 19 December 2016, 3 February 2017, 3 March 2017,
31 March 2017, 10 April 2017, 14 April 2017, 19 April 2017 and
26 April 2017.
Annex 2. Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 23 January 2017 (without attachment).
Annex 3. Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 21 March 2017.
Annex 4. Press release issued by Inter Services Public Relations on 10 April 2017.
Annex 5. Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 10 April 2017.
Annex 6. Press statement made by the Adviser to the Prime Minister of Pakistan
on 14 April 2017.
Annex 7. Briefing by authorized spokesperson of the Government of Pakistan on
17 April 2017.
Annex 8. Letter from EAM to Adviser to the Pakistan Prime Minister on Foreign
Affairs on 27 April 2017.
Annex 9. Press briefing of Government of Pakistan on 20 April 2017.
Annex 10. India Pakistan Agreement on Consular Access of 21 May 2008.
Annex 11. Copy of news report in Dawn of 15 April 2017.
* Annexes not reproduced in print version, but available in electronic version on the
Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org, under “cases”).
27
1
LISTE DES ANNEXES*
[Traduction]
Annexe 1. Notes verbales de l’Inde en date des 25 mars 2016, 30 mars 2016, 6 mai
2016, 10 juin 2016, 11 juillet 2016, 26 juillet 2016, 22 août 2016,
3 novembre 2016, 19 décembre 2016, 3 février 2017, 3 mars 2017,
31 mars 2017, 10 avril 2017, 14 avril 2017, 19 avril 2017 et 26 avril
2017.
Annexe 2. Note verbale du Pakistan en date du 23 janvier 2017 (sans pièce
jointe).
Annexe 3. Note verbale du Pakistan en date du 21 mars 2017.
Annexe 4. Communiqué de presse du bureau des relations publiques de l’armée
pakistanaise en date du 10 avril 2017.
Annexe 5. Note verbale du Pakistan en date du 10 avril 2017.
Annexe 6. Déclaration à la presse du conseiller pour les affaires étrangères auprès
du premier ministre du Pakistan en date du 14 avril 2017.
Annexe 7. Conférence de presse du porte-parole
du Gouvernement pakistanais
en date du 17 avril 2017.
Annexe 8. Lettre en date du 27 avril 2017 adressée au conseiller pour les affaires
étrangères auprès du premier ministre du Pakistan par le ministre des
affaires étrangères de l’Inde.
Annexe 9. Conférence de presse du Gouvernement du Pakistan en date du
20 avril 2017.
Annexe 10. Accord du 21 mai 2008 entre l’Inde et le Pakistan sur la communication
des autorités consulaires avec les ressortissants de l’Etat d’envoi.
Annexe 11. Article de presse paru le 15 avril 2017 dans le journal Dawn.
* Annexes non reproduites en version papier, mais disponibles en version électronique
sur le site Internet de la Cour (http://www.icj-cij.org, onglet « affaires »).
IMPRIMÉ EN FRANCE – PRINTED IN FRANCE
Application instituting proceedings