NEW DELHI: Consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav in the presence of Pakistani officials and the recording of the same will seriously compromise the process which has to be carried out by order of the ICJ , India has warned Pakistan .In its response to Pakistan’s consular access offer, the government said in its note verbale that Jadhav’s was a case of remedial, and not regular, consular access which the international court had sought for India while holding Pakistan guilty of having violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.After it managed to ferret out exclusive details of India’s note verbale, TOI learnt Saturday that India had called out Pakistan for disregarding the fact that, unlike regular cases of consular access where the degree of involvement of an accused in criminal acts is unknown, Jadhav had already been convicted by a military court on the basis of his alleged confession. This is the reason why, as a diplomatic source said, consular access can only be remedial and "private" in his case, with no Pakistani official or recording facility around."The failure to allow consular access before the alleged confessions were recorded now has to be remedied," Indian government told Pakistan.This is also expected to be the government’s main line of argument if it does decide to knock again on ICJ’s doors for justice to Jadhav. For India, it’s the most effective rebuttal of Pakistan’s contention that its offer, replete with riders like video and audio recording, is in line with jail manuals followed all over the world, including in India. India, in fact, said in its response that jail manuals only dealt with regular consular access.India went on to say that, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was incumbent on Pakistan to provide consular access "in private" in an environment free from the fear of intimidation and that any access granted perfunctorily will not fulfil the ICJ judgment mandate.India has also been worried, as obvious from the response, by Pakistan’s decision to repeatedly raise the Jadhav security issue, even after the ICJ judgment, as a basis for denial of consular assistance to him.The government told Pakistan that this argument had already been rejected by the international court. Pakistan had earlier told India that it was examining the judgment with a view to "fully addressing the security concerns surrounding commander Jadhav''.As India has repeatedly said, consular access is meant to allow an accused to exercise his right to defence. The ICJ held Pakistan guilty of violating Article 36 of Vienna Convention by not informing him of his rights after his arrest and by denying India consular access.In that regard, the government has mentioned in its response Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which, as the ICJ held, informs the interpretation of Article 36 of Vienna Convention. Some of the sections of the Article 14 which merited a mention in the Jadhav case included 3 (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing and 3 (g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. Then there’s also 3 (d) which calls for the accused to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing.These objectives, as India has said, would have been achieved in Jadhav’s case only if Pakistan had not failed in providing consular access to him immediately after his arrest. The denial of this right to Jadhav also raises question marks about the ‘evidence’ gathered by the Pakistan military against him, according to Indian officials.With Pakistan though unlikely to roll back any of the conditions it has imposed, the two countries are staring at another round of bitter and protracted legal battle on Jadhav.