The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will hold public hearings on Monday in the case of retired Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court.

Auto refresh feeds

Also, the case has strong ramifications for India which has never allowed to make the bilateral issue with Pakistan multi-lateral.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will have an open hearing on the Kulbhushan Jadhav execution case involving India and Pakistan at The Hague. With the court involved, it is no longer a battle of bilateral wills.

Meanwhile, speaking to CNN-News18, Sarabjit's lawyer Awais Shaikh said, "This is an excellent move by India. Kulbhushan Jadhav's case is being tried by military court. Pakistan cannot make undue decision. Pakistan cannot influence any judge in ICJ. It doesn’t matter if ex-ambassador of Pakistan is friends with any judge in ICJ."

The ICJ today will hear India's plea for suspension of Kulbhushan Jadhav's death penalty. A Pakistan military court had sentenced the Indian national to death on charges of "espionage and subversive activities" on April 10, this year.

Jadhav was handed a death sentence by Pakistan's military court on 10th April, 2016. He was arrested in March last year on charges of espionage India has already filed an appeal on behalf of Jadhav's mother in Pakistan.

It's a crucial day in India's bid to save Jadhav from the gallows in Pakistan. For the first time in over four decades, India has knocked the doors of the ICJ. The public hearing will start at The Hague, Netherlands, from 1.30pm IST. India will be represented by senior counsel Harish Salve. Both sides have been given one and a half hour each to make their case.

News18 further reported that Pakistan sent emissary from UAE who is close friend of ICJ judge to put stay on proceedings. Emissary has been asked to convince judge that there are still three important steps to go before hanging. The source also confirmed to the channel that meeting with Jindal and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was part of backchannels efforts by Pakistan government to ease out current situation.

Speaking to CNN-News18 , top Pakistan government sources said that Jadhav is alive and hanging will happen only after all judicial and appeal process over. The source also told the channel that Pakistan 'desperately' wants a stay on proceedings. "Pakistan authorities have opened all backchannels to put stay on proceedings."

Immediate suspension of the death sentence awarded to the accused Declaring the sentence of the military court brazen defiance of the Vienna Convention Restraining Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded & directing it to take steps to annul the decision If Pakistan is unable to annul the decision, then ICJ should declare the decision illegal

The International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the United Nations that settles legal disputes submitted to it by states. Here is India's plea to The Hague:

-Pakistan will insist this case will follow its domestic laws not Vienna Convention will be followed in Jadhav case -Consular access can be denied in cases related to national security ​-Jadhav was tried in a military court as he was a former naval officer -It may also say that all legal remedies have not been exhausted yet in Pakistan and so it is not the right time for ICJ to intervene

The court is expected to take some provisional steps till the case is finally decided. The 15-judge ICJ is not in session. Court president judge Ronny Abraham of France is expected to meet the agents or legal representatives of the two countries and decide on the procedural issues such as the time-frame of the case. Senior lawyer Harish Salve is representing India.

The Netherlands-based ICJ takes up Jadhav's case in the Great Hall of Justice housed in the Peace Palace in the city of The Hague. Both sides will get 90 minutes each to make their arguments, with India getting the first say.

This indicates that Pakistan, which has announced it will not abide by ICJ verdict, fears it may go against it.

News18 reports that Pakistan has opened backchannel manoevres to influence the hearing by dispatching quietly its ambassador to UAE Moazzam Ahmad Khan, who was earlier posted in The Netherlands. Ahmad's brief, according to the channel, is to "impress upon" a judge on the ICJ panel "friendly" to him to get across a message that India has prematurely approached the ICJ because Jadhav has not yet exhausted all his judicial options in Pakistan.

Pakistan's moves since India's petition at the International Court of Justice betrays a nervousness about the impending verdict. The steps that the Nawaz Sharif government has taken so far to counter India's aggressive pitch at the judicial arm of the United Nations indicate that its case is weak and it is therefore desperately trying to stall today's proceedings at The Hague.

The Pakistani team will be led by Attorney-General Ashtar Ausaf, assisted by senior lawyer Asad Rahim. Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua, who has prior experience at the UN, is also expected to fly to The Hague, where Pakistan will be presenting its case using past precedent where India has refused the ICJ jurisdiction, including in the 1999 Atlantique case of a plane that was shot down by India.

c) Pakistan should ensure that no action should be taken while proceedings in the court are taking place

India has also accused Pakistan of "egregious violations" of New Delhi's rights under the Vienna convention on consular relations when it sought ICJ's intervention on 8 May.

The imminent danger to the life of Jadhav, who was given the death sentence by a Pakistani military court on 10 April, is India’s reason for moving the ICJ. India says Pakistan accelerated the situation by ignoring 16 requests for consular access to Jadhav. His trial in the military court was a sham and didn't follow international norms even though Jadhav is a foreign national.

11-judge bench is hearing the Kulbhushan Jadhav case in ICJ. India may avail a "short extension" beyond 90 minutes to present its case, says ICJ judge. Mittal argues, "India has demanded several consular access but there has been no response from Pakistan. This reflects farcical nature of hearing in Pakistan. Pakistan has not provided any chargesheet, evidence. No response from Pakistan on visa for family members of Jadhav. This is serious miscarriage of justice."

"India has made several requests for consular access but Pakistan has not provided it, Article 36 of Vienna Convention has been violated. Pakistan did not inform India at the time of his arrest. I express on behalf of my country gratitude for fixing hearing in short notice. Situation we find is grave and urgent," India's counsel Harish Salve tells the 11-judge bench.

India puts Jadhav case strictly within the ambit of international law India, as expected, kept the focus strictly on Pakistan's violation of international convention as hearing began in Kulbhushan Jadhav's case at the ICJ headquarters in The Hague on Monday. In taking its case to the ICJ, India is aware that Pakistan's petition was struck down by the ICJ in 1999 when India took a stance that the shooting down of the Atlantique aircraft was a security issue and would be dealt with strictly in accord with bilateral treaties. India has therefore sought to differentiate this appeal with firm focus on Pakistan's violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 and Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. India's agent Deepak Mittals opening remarks made it clear that India is setting the Jadhav case within the ambit of Vienna convention on consular relations (VCCR) which Pakistan has flagrantly violated by not allowing consular access to Jadhav despite 16 formal requests

We may have to prepare for the possibility that Pakistan will ignore the International Court of Justice since it has already violated diplomatic rights and breached international law.

"Jadhav has not got the right to get proper legal assistance and the right to consular access. There is an immediate threat to him to be executed even before a decision is passed" by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Deepak Mittal, Indian official, told the court in his opening remarks. Mittal termed the military court trial of Jadhav as "farcical".

India on Monday sought an immediate suspension of the death sentence awarded to alleged spy Kulbushan Jadhav in Pakistan saying there was a fear that he may be executed even before the decision of the international court.

"It is clear that Jadhav has been denied of his right to seek legal counsel. Jadhav's parents have applied for visa to travel to Pakistan which has fallen on deaf ears."

Deepak Mittal told ICJ President Ronny Abraham, who presided over the proceedings, that India's repeated requests to Pakistan on consular access to Jadhav were denied. "India learnt from press reports that the death sentence was awarded to Jadhav on the basis of an alleged confession. Pakistan has not provided the chargesheet, any documents on the case despite repeated requests," Mittal told the court.

Sharma also urged the court to restrain Pakistan from "giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military court" and to direct it to annul its decision. The day-long hearing, which began on Monday morning, would involve two sessions of an hour-and-a-half each to India and Pakistan to make their cases. Pakistan's session will begin in the afternoon.

VD Sharma, a joint secretary in the external affairs ministry and co-agent, said Pakistan had failed to comply with all its legal obligations by denying consular access to Jadhav ever since he was arrested in March 2016. India is seeking relief in the form of immediate suspension of the death sentence. Jadhav has been accused of espionage by Pakistan.

"Jadhav's mother has filed for an appeal which was transmitted to Pakistan via diplomatic paths. The communication of 12 May does not clarify on what his charges are or any clarity on the request for clemency. Pakistan said that Jadhav's sentence is based on credible evidence in espionage against Pakistan."

Salve referred to precedent of past cases including LaGrand case between Germany and US in 1982. The case referred to the hearing before the ICJ which concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

"I am grateful to the ICJ for taking up the case at such short notice. India has moved ICJ under Article 14 seeking suspension of the sentence awarded to Jadhav. The case is grave and urgent."

This is also facetious position, held Salve in his argument. He pointed out that despite Pakistan's promises, Jadhav may have far lesser time than the 90 days even if he chooses to take the clemency route.

In his argument, Harish Salve exposed the hypocrisy of Pakistan's stance on Jadhav by pointing out that on one hand Pakistan accuses the Indian National of being involved in "serious offences that harm the security of the country" and on the the hand, holding that Jadhav has still not exhausted his clemency options.

Jadhav has much less time than Pakistan would have us believe, India's lead lawyer presented before the International Court of Justice at The Hague on Monday.

Although Jadhav is unlikely to be executed while the case is being heard in the ICJ, there is still a fear that he will be 'murdered' by Pakistan.

Pakistan will argue that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate over bilateral issues. To bolster their argument, they will bring up the fact that India has, in the past, questioned the court's power to intervene. I hope India is ready with a response.

In the three instances where Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations were breached — Paraguay vs USA, Germany versus USA, and Mexico vs USA — the court made a strong argument for protecting the rights of the accused. However, it makes no difference if Pakistan refuses to heed the court's call.

As far as India is concerned, no evidence against Jadhav has been presented. However, as honourable as our efforts have been, we are not going to be able to get Jadhav's death sentence annulled.

Pakistan wants Jadhav to beg for his life. In public. And through him, India, to beg for his life. They want us to humiliate us and mark that as a confession of our guilt. They want us to plead with them — with the Pakistan army chief and the president — Pakistan has also 'linked' the execution to India's 'adventurism' and warned India against taking any action in case Jadhav is executed.

"Pakistan has refused to communicate to consular services; India has not been given the copy of the charges filed against Jadhav. The need for a wholesome compliance is greater when charges are serious. We want appropriate legal representation for Kulbhushan Jadhav," Harish Salve tells ICJ.

"India will always maintain that Kulbhushan Jadhav has been kidnapped from Iran. Jadhav has been denied the right to defend himself. The 'confession' was extracted in military custody. No indications whether Jadhav can seek or receive clemency. We fear that Jadhav will be executed before this trail ends. The present situation is grave and that is why India has sought the indulgence of ICJ. Pakistan has violated the Vienna Convention," says Harish Salve.

"India relies on the Vienna Convention. The agreement between India and Pakistan on consular access is relevant. India does not rely and does not need to rely on this greement. It bases its case solely on the Vienna Convention."

"India asserts in the application that Pakistan denied consular access to Jadhav. The reasons for the said denial was also not given to India. India has not been given a copy of the charges or the verdict and hence has been unable to check the charges. The Vienna Convention offers no exception. India asserts that the breach of the Vienna Convention is fatal. Under Article 36, jurisdiction exists in respect of all cases that parties refer to and in respect of all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions."

"In its letter of 21 March, Pakistan said to India that the request of consular access can be entertained if India assists in the investigation. The more serious the charge the greater the need to ensure procedural safeguards to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial. The confession played a significant part in the case. The allegations were made even as Jadhav's basic rights were denied."

The better part of the argument by Harish Salve, India's counsel at ICJ, was aimed at establishing that ICJ's powers have enforceability. He cited a lot of past cases and was at pains to point out that Pakistan's bilateral agreement with India, which it has repeatedly cited while denying consular access, does not have enforceability vis-a-vis ICJ's powers to interpret and apply the provisions of Vienna Convention.

It must be noted that basing an argument on the Optional Protocol may be a problem in establishing claims of violation of any the other treaty such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as has been requested by India in its application .

India also clarified that the basis of jurisdiction is de hors the Agreement on Consular Access between India and Pakistan. Pakistan may, however, argue that this Agreement is "special law" overriding the "general law"; and does not provide a basis for approaching the ICJ.

However, this does not imply that the ICJ may indicate provisional measures unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant country appear, based on first impressions, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the ICJ might be founded. For instance, if the court finds that it has a prima facie jurisdiction in this case, Pakistan will have an option to challenge the same; and the decision on jurisdiction at this stage is without prejudice to Pakistan’s right to contest the jurisdiction of the ICJ at a later stage in the proceedings.

In other words, in a request for the indication of provisional measures, the ICJ does not have to finally satisfy itself before deciding whether to indicate provisional measures that it has jurisdiction on the subject matter of the case.

At this stage, it must also be clarified in all cases where there is a request by one of the parties to indicate provisional measures, a country has to only establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction.

Islamabad has gone on the record, saying it reworked its rules to keep the ICJ out of these affairs, especially bilateral issues.

The defendants in three previous cases—Paraguay vs USA, Germany versus USA, and Mexico vs USA—ignored the ICJ, so there is a precedent.

Even if it is indicted by the ICJ, a nation that harbours terrorists won't lose any sleep over it.

If it feels it can get away with executing Jadhav and that the furore will only last a couple of days, it will.

The fact remains: It doesn’t matter what we think or how strong India's case might be. Pakistan has Jadhav in custody.

In June 2016, the ICJ expressed concern that Pakistan’s military justice system was unjust and ineffective. Since then, the ICJ hasn’t changed its stance.

Since March, there has been no information on Jadhav's condition. Is he being tortured? Is he dead?

Regardless of what Pakistan puts up as its defence, India needs to ask for proof that Kulbhushan Jadhav is still alive. Else, this entire exercise becomes moot.

Mohammad Faisal, Director General, South Asia and SAARC, says Pakistan will not be cowed by terrorism and that India has used the court as a stage for theatre.

Presenting Pakistan's case, Mohammad Faisal, DG, South Asia & SAARC sought to harp on the terrorism trope while making the case why the ICJ has no jurisdiction over an issue that concerns Pakistan's internal security and hence should be governed by Pakistan's local laws within the bilateral framework. Pakistan agent Faisal called upon the ICJ to dismiss India's petition.

"India claims Jadhav's trial was rushed and that he could be executed summarily. None of that is true," Qureshi says.

QC Khawar Qureshi, speaking for Pakistan, says there is no urgency and that India's plea must be dismissed. He claims that India was given detailed copy of FIR and that Jadhav was arrested in Balochistan after crossing in from Iran.

His rhetoric attempted to confuse the fact that Jadhav was railroaded. However, he refused to go anywhere near the violation of human rights or the absence of hard evidence against the prisoner and also failed to deny that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran.

The opening statement had no depth and was a shrill diatribe against India. It only wished to underscore the innocence of the Pakistani government. The cloak of injury and hurt sentiment will not wash as a defence. Pakistani counsel also continued his tone of aggrieved innocence and asked the court to dismiss India's plea.

Interestingly, having made his point, Qureshi leapt to suggesting it is outside the court's jurisdiction to provide relief to India because it has no power to annul Pakistan military court's verdict. It is telling that the Pakistani counsel seemed to be relying more on veiled threats rather than countering India's charge that Pakistan is in flagrant violation of 1963 Vienna Convention.

Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi, while putting forth his argument at the Peace Palace in The Hague, labeled India's petition as "time-wasting tactics" and "political grandstanding" and called upon the International Court of Justice to dismiss the petition.

Pakistan stresses India's application should be canceled on three grounds. "There is no urgency. The relief sought by India is manifestly unavailable, and the jurisdiction is limited."

Pakistan arrogantly told the ICJ they had bigger fish to fry and would not waste time on political grandstanding. Surely, many of the statements had seeds of contempt of the court.

Smooth talk, shallow substance and finally running away to Paraguay and other cases shows there was no fresh or tangible evidence against Jadhav and this will largely delay the proceedings.

There has been deafening silence and no response from India on Pakistan's accusations on Jadhav, says Qureshi.

Responding to India's contention that Jadhav's trial was in gross violation of Vienna Convention, Pakistan says that provisions not intended to apply to a 'spy' involved in terror activities.

Court will render its order as soon as possible, says judge. Date on which order will be delivered will be duly communicated to the parties, he adds.

The rest of its argument does not conceal the Pakistani stance: It will not listen if the ICJ calls for a stay. Pakistan then used Article 5 to defend its refusal to grant consular access. The military court decided it wasn't called for, so consular access wasn't granted.

The Pakistan defence was that the ICJ has no power to adjudicate a criminal offence and there should be no provisional measures if there no relief is possible. Reading between the lines, Pakistan indicated its intent to go ahead with the execution and practically said it would not accept a stay order.

Finally, Pakistan fell back on some convoluted rendition of Jadhav being kidnapped as far-fetched. No answers here to be found here. Only a torrent of words.

Now they now want to know why India could not or did not prove he was an Indian national. Now it is our fault that we did not deny his nationality. This arrow completely missed the mark.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will pronounce its verdict on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case on Thursday, just 10 days after India approached it demanding immediate suspension of the death sentence given to its former Navy officer by a Pakistan military court.

India is represented by its agent Deepak Mittal, who is the head of the Pakistan division in the external affairs ministry. The case is argued by its lead attorney Harish Salve. The Indian team is expected to be present at the time of the verdict.

India had approached the ICJ on 8 May, accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention and conducting a "farcical trial" for convicting Jadhav, which was in "egregious violations" of the Vienna Convention.

India enumerated four provisional measures in its appeal to the ICJ: declare the death sentence awarded to Jadhav illegal; being violative of international law and treaty rights; 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 if Pakistan is unable to annul the decision, direct it to release the convicted Indian national forthwith.

In India's submission to the ICJ on 15 May at a public hearing, India had demanded the immediate annulment of Jadhav's death sentence, expressing fears that Pakistan could execute him even before the hearing at the ICJ was over.

Judge Ronny Abraham, president of the court, will read the decision, it said. The decision comes after India sought the court's intervention on Monday for an immediate suspension of Jadhav's death sentence, fearing that the Indian national may be executed even before the ICJ decided the case.

In a statement, the ICJ announced that it will "deliver its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures made by India in the Jadhav Case (India versus Pakistan), on Thursday" at noon (3.30 pm IST) in a public sitting.

Abraham became the member of ICJ on 15 February 2005. He was elected as the president of the UN court on 6 February 2015. Before the ICJ appointment, from 1998 to 2005, as head of the Legal Affairs Directorate at the French ministry of foreign affairs, he was in charge of advising the government on legal matters in the fields of general international public law, European Union law, international human rights law, the law of the sea and the Antarctic.

As the world court prepares to read out the judgment in this highly-awaited case, here's what we know about the president of ICJ — Ronny Abraham.

"A public sitting will take place at 12 noon at the Peace Palace in The Hague, during which Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the Court, will read the court's decision," the international court said in a release on Wednesday.

President of the Court Ronny Abraham, will read out the decision at midday local time (3.30 pm IST). The case — a rare foray for the two nations into the international courts after 18 years — has highlighted the recent sharp uptick in tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals.

Pakistan had rebutted India's allegation that Islamabad violated Vienna Convention by saying that India had no right to invoke the jurisdiction of the UN's highest court because the Vienna Convention does not provide for matters relating to spies, terrorists and those who indulge in espionage.

India further charged that Jadhav had no access to legal counsel in Pakistan, had been denied consular access and that his confession admitting his crimes had been extracted forcefully when he was in military custody.

In terms of precedents in the history of the ICJ, there are three previous death penalty/Vienna Convention-related cases wherein the timelines and results are instructive. It remains to be seen whether there will be any major deviation from these decisions. Click here for the detailed report on the previous cases.

Jadhav was awarded the death sentence by a Pakistani military court last month, a year after he was arrested on charges of espionage and subversive activities. While India stated that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy, Pakistan claims to have arrested Jadhav from its restive Balochistan province.

Jadhav's arrest and conviction created a diplomatic maelstrom between the two countries, with India requesting consular access to the imprisoned man 16 times, only to be repeatedly turned down by Pakistan.

Asserting that Jadhav's execution was not imminent, Pakistan said he had 150 days to plead clemency. However, the ICJ denied permission to Pakistan to play the purported "confessional" video of Jadhav at the public hearing.

Going by the way the ICJ has, within 48 hours of the oral hearing, decided to pronounce its verdict, it is very likely that the court will accede to India's request for "provisional measures". This should, in the near term, appear as relief to India because Pakistan will find it difficult to send Jadhav to the gallows before a full trial at the ICJ is conducted.

India's argument, put forward by senior counsel Harish Salve last Monday, was that the State of Pakistan appears to be in collusion and there can be no real relief possible for Jadhav. In fact, India fears that the execution might take place before the trial is over.

Hegde and Kishore argued that the ICJ proceedings are a legal forum for declarations of legitimacy, adding that international law is still largely "a law without sanctions". In fact, according to them, an order on provisional measures will only be the beginning of a longer journey which will entail long drawn proceedings on the merits of the case.

Even if the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are in India's favour on Thursday, Pakistan could still go ahead with the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, wrote Supreme Court lawyers Sanjay Hegde and Pranjal Kishore in this Business Standard article.

By refusing to acknowledge the 2008 Agreement, India could have well just terminated that agreement. The agreement is critical for the fate of many Indian fishermen who end up straying into Pakistani waters year after year as it called for the exchange of prisoner lists and consular access. Read the full report here

The legal issues stem from the fact that there was a 2008 bilateral agreement on consular access. An agreement that India sought not to rely on at the Hague on Monday and merely restricted itself to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In doing so, India made the point that the agreement had not been registered with the United Nations and therefore, India would have to restrict the argument to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations alone.

Monday's hearing before the International Court of Justice at the Hague may appear to be a victory for India in terms of political points scored back home, but there were some key legal issues that Pakistan did point out that require our consideration.

It is to be noted that at no stage of the hearing did Pakistan give any assurance that the 150-day deadline is sacrosanct. This is expected to strengthen India's case and the court's limited verdict today. Read the full report here

When President of the Court Ronny Abraham sits down to read the ICJ's decision at the Hague-based Peace Palace on Thursday, he will essentially rule on whether prima facie India has a case at all before the court. In ICJ's words, according to the media statement uploaded on its website it is going to pronounce its "Order on the request for the indication of provisional measures made by India in the Jadhav Case".

In the past, cases for a breach of Article 36 have all been brought against the United States and the US has generally refused to act on provisional measures ordered by the Court. Though the ICJ does often grant provisional measures, it will be interesting to see how these provisional measures are worded and on what basis they are granted.

"We all are praying that he is delivered justice. Almost everybody here is praying for him. We have been campaigning on various fronts for his safe return. We are very hopeful that the verdict is going to be in our favour. The way Salve ji has put his point, we are very hopeful," he told ANI.

Judge Ronny Abraham is reading out the verdict in Kulbhushan Jadhav case. The 11-judge bench will pronounce the verdict shortly. Court has jurisdiction in the case because of Vienna Convention, Abraham noted. The judge dismisses Pakistan reservations on this issue.

"It appears that under Pakistan law Kulbhushan Jadhav would have 40 days to appeal but it is not known whether he has done so. India said Kulbhushan Jadhav's mother has filed an appeal and petition to Pakistan government both handed over to Indian High Commission:" ICJ president Ronny Abraham

"Vienna convention does not exclude those found guilty under terror and espionage... Court considers that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article 36 to entertain dispute of the parties," says ICJ president Ronny Abraham.

ICJ rejects Pakistan's argument that it has no jurisdiction to rule in Jadhav case. Reserves the right to adjudicate on interpretation of Article 36 of Vienna Convention under Article 1 of ICJ statute. This means that court judgement is favourable to India.

- ICJ accepts india's demand for consular access for Jadhav - It appears that the rights invoked by India in the present case are plausible, says Judge Abraham - All parties under Vienna Convention have rights to provide consular assistance to their nationals, says ICJ - ICJ rules it has prima facie jurisdiction to take up the case of Jadhav

Pakistan is required to tell the court what steps it has taken in compliance. It is also important to note here that our High Commissioner in Islamabad still doesn't have access to Jhadav, as we haven't asked the Court for that in our Request For Provisional Measures.

The Court has said that there is a case under the Vienna Convention and since Pakistan cannot guarantee that he won't be executed till the proceedings are over, it is important to ask Pakistan to not execute Jadhav.

It is important to note that the ICJ has not examined India's claim on merits or it's claim on final relief.

Pakistan is required to tell the court what steps it has taken in compliance

Judge Ronny Abraham asks Pakistan not to execute Jadhav, asks it to keep the court informed of all measures taken and orders Pakistan to keep the court seized of all steps. This was a unanimous verdict.

"It's a convincing win for India. The order needs to be studied, we need to see Pakistan's reaction. I hope consular access should be given. Because that was one of the main points. I hope Pakistan sees sense, behave like a responsible nation. Not just consular access even the family should be given access to Kulbhushan Jadhav," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told CNN-News18.

The unanimous verdict, said ICJ president Ronny Abraham, shall be binding on Pakistan and if the country is found guilty of violating it, it shall draw international censure.

The order has put Kulbhushan Jadhav's execution on hold till the international court completes its full hearing and gives a final judgment on the case. While accepting India's request for "provisional measures", the court ordered Pakistan to ensure that:

The ICJ court on Thursday threw out Pakistan's arguments and accepted India's argument thus established the primacy of 1963 Vienna Convention over the 2008 Bilateral Agreement between India and Paksitan.

The sequence of events, following India's application seeking provisional measures to stop the Indian national from being sent to the gallows before a full hearing at the ICJ, will force the hand of Pakistan in following international laws and guidelines which it may otherwise have flouted with impunity. It may still do so but any brazening out on the ICJ interim order would carry a steep diplomatic price.

Through the ICJ appeal and verdict in its favour, India has managed to bring an international spotlight on the Jadhav case which will prevent Pakistan from carrying out any execution in darkness or under the cloak of silence.

Apart from the fact that the ICJ on Thursday made it binding on Pakistan to abide by the interim order and stay the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav till the final verdict is delivered on this case — which may extend well beyond the August 2017 deadline proposed by Pakistan, there are other pressing reasons why Pakistan will find it very difficult now to disregard all orders and send Jadhav to the gallows.

In the LaGrand case, the court called on the US to "take all measures at its disposal" to ensure that Walter LaGrand (on death row at the time) was not executed pending a final decision of the court in the proceedings instituted by Germany and inform it of all the measures taken in implementation of the order. Nevertheless, Walter was executed shortly after the Court had issued the provisional measures order.

In the Breard case, the court called on the US to "take all measures at its disposal" to prevent the execution of Breard, pending a final decision of the court in the proceedings instituted by Paraguay. The court also requested the US to inform it of all the measures taken in implementation of its order. However, Breard was executed on schedule on 14 April. Paraguay later withdrew the case.

Former Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Yadav is still not safe from the gallows as there are instances where an interim order by the International Court of justice has failed to save an accused from being executed. Two such examples are:

The court then examines whether there is a risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency. It considers that the mere fact that Jadhav is under a death sentence and might, therefore, be executed is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a risk of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India. The court further observes that Pakistan has indicated that any execution of Jadhav would probably not take place before the month of August 2017. This means that there is a risk that an execution could take place at any moment thereafter before the court has given its final decision in the case. The court also notes that Pakistan has given no assurance that Jadhav will not be executed before the court has rendered its final decision. In those circumstances, the court is satisfied that there is urgency in the present case.

"The court then focuses on the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It considers that the measures requested are aimed at ensuring that the rights contained in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, are preserved. Therefore, a link exists between the rights claimed by India and the provisional measures being sought. IV. On Jadhav's executive risk

"In the view of the court, this is sufficient to establish that it has prima facie jurisdiction under Article I of - 2 - the Optional Protocol. The court further observes that the existence of a 2008 bilateral Agreement between the Parties on consular relations does not change its conclusion on jurisdiction. II. On consular access It observes that the rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform the person concerned without delay of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and that India has alleged violations of this provision. In the view of the court, therefore, it appears that the rights alleged by India are plausible III. On Validity of measures India sought

"The ICJ notes that the acts alleged by India, i.e., the alleged failure by Pakistan to provide the requisite consular notifications with regard to the arrest and detention of Jadhav, as well as the alleged failure to allow communication and provide access to him, appear to be capable of falling within the scope of the Convention.

The ICJ gave an interim order in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case on Thursday in India's favour, thus telling Pakistan to put on hold the planned execution of Jadhav. Here are some key points from the interim order.

"The ICJ order," she also said, "has come as a great relief to the familly of Kulbhushan Jadhav and people of India."

Swaraj also said that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India will leave no stone unturned to save Kulbhushan Jadhav.

" We are grateful to Mr.Harish Salve for presenting India's case so effectively before ICJ," Swaraj tweeted on Thursday, adding, "I compliment my team of officers in the MEA for their tireless efforts and hard work."

Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj on Thursday thanked her staff and the Indian lawyer Harish Salve for the combine effort to present Kulbhushan Jadhav's case at the ICJ and for the interim order that told Pakistan to put on hold Jadhav's execution.

The Prime Minister's reaction came after the 11-judge bench of the ICJ unanimously stayed the execution of Jadhav who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistan military court on charges of espionage and subversive activities.

He spoke to External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to thank her and appreciated the efforts of advocate Harish Salve who represented India in the case, official sources said.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday expressed satisfaction at the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which stayed the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav who is on death row in Pakistan.

It was evident from Zakaria's statements that Pakistan is not happy with the the interim order. Zakaria also said that Pakistan will present solid evidence against Jadhav in the international court.

The Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson also accused India of violating several sections in the bilateral agreement signed between the two countries.

akistan on Thursday accused India of "hiding its real face" in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. Addressing a gathering of mediapesons, Zakria accused India of "trying to defend a person whose actions have led to the killing of Pakistani citizens".

The move to take the Jadhav case to the ICJ, therefore, may be read as a turning point in India's foreign policy.

The interim ICJ order in India's favour should instil confidence in us. That India isn't a rogue state like Pakistan and a rule-based state that respects international laws are more likely to benefit it from moving disputes from a bilateral to multilateral framework especially when it concerns irresponsible, revisionist states like Pakistan.

It was argued that India has nothing to gain and everything to lose from highlighting the Jadhav case because it opens us to international scrutiny. India has long remained a victim of defeatism on foreign policy and it required a bold step from the Narendra Modi government to remove the mental cobwebs.

India's decision to move International Court of Justice on Kulbhushan Jadhav drew many sceptics to conclude that this move turns a bilateral issue into a multilateral one and Pakistan will seize this chance to highlight the trouble in Kashmir.

The Prime Minister's reaction came after the 11-judge bench of the ICJ unanimously stayed the execution of Jadhav who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistan military court on charges of espionage and subversive activities.

He spoke to External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to thank her and appreciated the efforts of advocate Harish Salve who represented India in the case, official sources said.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday expressed satisfaction at the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which stayed the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav who is on death row in Pakistan.

It was evident from Zakaria's statements that Pakistan is not happy with the the interim order. Zakaria also said that Pakistan will present solid evidence against Jadhav in the international court.

The Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson also accused India of violating several sections in the bilateral agreement signed between the two countries.

akistan on Thursday accused India of "hiding its real face" in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. Addressing a gathering of mediapesons, Zakria accused India of "trying to defend a person whose actions have led to the killing of Pakistani citizens".

The move to take the Jadhav case to the ICJ, therefore, may be read as a turning point in India's foreign policy.

The interim ICJ order in India's favour should instil confidence in us. That India isn't a rogue state like Pakistan and a rule-based state that respects international laws are more likely to benefit it from moving disputes from a bilateral to multilateral framework especially when it concerns irresponsible, revisionist states like Pakistan.

It was argued that India has nothing to gain and everything to lose from highlighting the Jadhav case because it opens us to international scrutiny. India has long remained a victim of defeatism on foreign policy and it required a bold step from the Narendra Modi government to remove the mental cobwebs.

India's decision to move International Court of Justice on Kulbhushan Jadhav drew many sceptics to conclude that this move turns a bilateral issue into a multilateral one and Pakistan will seize this chance to highlight the trouble in Kashmir.

Nation is very happy. There is no evidence against #KulbhushanJadhav , trail against him is illegal. void & abusive: PP Chaudhary, MoS Law pic.twitter.com/6zytyMQhla

Commenting on Pakistan's reaction to the case where it downplayed the interim order, Baglay said that reiterated that the order is "binding" on Pakistan.

"The provisional release which has been guaranteed an essential first step in saving Jadhav's life and the rights that Pakistan violated in the process. We welcome the decision." Gopal said.

"This is a matter of great relief and I am sure every Indian is equally relieved. Kulbhushan Jadhav can not be executed by Pakistan. The MEA had assured the Parliament that the govt will do everything to ensure Jadhav is not executed in Pakistan. And this interim order ensures that commitment," he added.

The Ministry of External Affairs expressed its relief on the interim order that the International Court of Justice passed on Thursday. Gopal Baglay, spokesperson, MEA said, "The ICJ at Hague a unanimous, favourable and ambiguous order on India's request for provisional measures on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. It has told Pakistan to ensure Jadhav is not executed until the court completes the hearing,"

Baglay also said that there's no clarity as to whether or not Jadhav has filed an appeal, the date for which expires on 19 May. "Even the ICJ is not aware of it. We do not have any information and no official information has been given to us. What we know is that Jadhav's mother has sent an application to Pakistan."

The MEA also expressed the ministry's willingness to talk parallelly with Pakistan on the case. "We have already demanded consular access. Our case is that according to Vienna convention, Pakistan should allow consular access to Jadhav. Even the ICJ president said that there's a dispute between the two parties," he said.

Baglay, however, refused to comment on the future course of action if Pakistan refuses to follow the ICJ order. "This matter is subjudice. As to what course the matter will take, it's best not to go into it at the moment. The court has clearly said that till a final decision comes in the matter, it has told Pakistan what it needs to do and what not do," he added.

When asked about the visas for Jadhav's parents, the ministry said that it has not received any updates on the same from Pakistan.

"The ICJ order clearly says that is binding internationally and legally. India is a law abiding country, we follow international law. We believe that an internationally binding law will be followed. At this point, we can't speculate.

I

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will hold public hearings on Monday in the case of retired Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. The announcement was made by ICJ on 10 May, a day after it stayed Jadhav's execution following India's initiation of proceedings against Pakistan, accusing the latter of "egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations". According to the ICJ statement, an oral observation by India will begin at 10 am (1.30 pm IST) and go on till 11.30 am, following which oral observation by Pakistan will begin at 3 pm and is expected to go on till 4.30 pm.

The ICJ will have an open hearing on the Jadhav execution case involving India and Pakistan at The Hague. With the court involved, it is no longer a battle of bilateral wills. Also, the case has strong ramifications for India which has never allowed to make the bilateral issue with Pakistan multi-lateral. The last time it did so was in 1971. Of late, several countries seem to have taken up the cry to "interfere" in resolving the Kashmir dispute.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings on Monday, May 15, 2017...in the proceedings instituted by India on May 8, 2017 against Pakistan. The hearings will be devoted to the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by India," the ICJ said in a release.

India had told ICJ that Jadhav "will be subjected to execution unless the court indicates provisional measures directing the government of Pakistan to take all measures necessary to ensure that he is not executed until th(e) Court's decision on the merits" of the case.

India pointed out that Jadhav's execution "would cause irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India".

Noting that India has been informed by the ICJ that an action has been initiated on "provisional measures" sought by New Delhi, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay in New Delhi said there is "legal juridical procedure" that will be followed.

Earlier, the ICJ president wrote to the Pakistani prime minister, saying, "In my capacity as president of the court,.. I call upon your excellency's government, pending the court's decision on the request for the indication of provisional measures to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on this request to have its appropriate effects."

On whether the "provisional measures" granted by the ICJ including a halt to Jadhav's execution was binding on Pakistan, Baglay referred to the clauses in ICJ rules which said "a request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases".

India had submitted that it has information that Jadhav was "kidnapped from Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring from the Indian Navy and was then shown to have been arrested in Baluchistan" on 3 March, 2016, and that Indian authorities were notified of that arrest on 25 March, 2016, a ICJ press release had said on Sunday.

Jadhav, 46, was given the death sentence by the Field General Court Martial in Pakistan last month, evoking a sharp reaction in India, which warned Pakistan of consequences and damage to bilateral ties if the "pre-meditated murder" was carried out. Jadhav was sentenced to death for "espionage and subversive activities".

India acknowledged that Jadhav had served with the navy, but denied that he has any connection with the government. India has also handed over to Pakistan an appeal by Jadhav's mother, initiating a process to get his conviction overturned.

With inputs from agencies