DER SPIEGEL –
Three judges from the International Court of Justice have discussed their verdict at the press conference.
The judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Dalveer Bhandari, Giorgio Gaja and James Crawford have been put on the spot, and they faced some challenging questions.
To recap, the Jadhav Case was a legal dispute between India and Pakistan. Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav was sentenced to death in a Pakistani military court. India had requested consular access as a response, and Pakistan consistently ignored the former’s 16 requests. India believed that Pakistan violated Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), while Pakistan argued that the 2008 bilateral agreement between them and India overrode the VCCR.
In the end, the judges of the ICJ have reached the verdict that Pakistan must give consular access to India for the Jadhav case. The judges have found that the 2008 bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan did not override the VCCR, and in addition to Article 36, which outlines the right for consular officers “to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them.” of the VCCR, the judges also examined Article 55, which emphasizes that respect for the receiving State’s laws and regulations. There seems to be hope for justice with Mr. Jadhav.
Problems with the verdict
According to Crawford, after Pakistan grants consular access to India, the new trial the former holds will be considered a fair trial. This is problematic because Pakistan would still have the right to execute Mr. Jadhav. Have we not learned from the LaGrand case? Have we not learned from many of the other cases that were almost identical to the Jadhav case?