As the old lawyers’ saying goes, “When you are strong on the law, you hammer the law, if you are strong on the facts, you hammer the facts, and when you have neither on your side, you hammer the table”. Bereft of a case, Pakistan has hammered the proverbial table.
Succinct of India’s Final round of arguments: [20-02-2019]
“Indian nationals are not the kind whose nationality needs to be denied, unlike Pakistan.”
Pakistan invites the Court to treat as true the confession made by Mr Jadhav to the military and in that the very first assertion is that he is an Indian national and an officer of the RAW. If Pakistan so closely, dearly and fully believes his confession, why do they doubt his nationality?”
“India’s criticism of the system of military courts trying civilians generally, and of the manner in which the military courts have functioned, has been documented by the International Commission of Jurists, the Human Rights Committee and even in a resolution of the European Parliament.”
“Experts find that military courts are generally confined to service personnel. It is known that there are some military courts — Pakistan is one, and unfortunately not the sole example — in which military courts have jurisdiction to try civilians.”
“One of the reasons why India seeks Mr. Jadhav’s release, apart from showing propaganda, is that he has become a pawn and a convenient tool for Pakistan to try and unsuccessfully divert global attention from its own conduct.”
When we talk of review, I would draw the attention of the Court in stark contrast, in the Kasab case where the Supreme Court of India, dealing with an application filed by a Pakistani terrorist, apprehended red-handed and caught by a brave police officer who absorbed on himself a magazine of bullets on his person, the Supreme Court held that “We may also state here that since it is a case of death sentence, we intend to examine the materials on record first hand, in accordance with the time-honoured practice of this Court, and come to our own conclusions on all issues of facts and law, unbound by the findings of the trial court and the High Court.” This is called “review”.
There has been an egregious violation of the Vienna Convention.
- Khawar Qureshi starts presenting the final round of oral arguments.
- Characters from wonderland have no place in this Court.
- I challenge India to identify any discrepancy, states Qureshi.
- India persists to distract and deflect attention to answer critical questions.
- India’s double standards parades itself.
- Why is it, again and again, necessary to involve in fiction.
- Is the approach of India as it suggests really to “hammer the facts”?
- India’s conduct cannot go unchecked. This is the court of the international community, not fantasy not fiction.
- India appears to have closed its eyes as well as mind, given that clear and express reference to the judgment of Peshawar High Court was made.
- Pakistan understands chronology.
- It’s simply wrong to disparage the military courts of Pakistan.
- Pakistan was expecting India to show some respect to the Court, if not Pakistan, and if not the independent experts. That has not happened.
- India’s claim for relief remains as far fetched now as it was then.
- India’s conduct is in a manner to disregard the truth.
- India’s claim for relief must be dismissed, Qureshi ends his arguments.
- Pakistan has a very robust system for review or reconsideration, says the agent of Pakistan.
- Mention of Afzal Guru case along with Pulwama incident and Samjhauta express in concluding remarks of Pakistan’s Agent.
- Agent accuses India of committing human rights violations by using pellet guns in Kashmir.
- Consular access was denied for good reasons, says agent of Pakistan.
- End of week-long oral arguments.
- Court retires for deliberation. Agents will be informed when the judgment would be delivered.