NEW DELHI- India today filed a fresh set of pleadings in the InternationalCourt of Justice (ICJ) relating to the case of its national KulbhushanJhadav who was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in Aprillast year on charges of espionage and terrorism.
The second round of written reply by India in the case was in response tothe submissions by Pakistan in the ICJ on December 13 last year, theMinistry of External Affairs (MEA)said.
India had moved The Hague-based ICJ in May last after Jadhav, 47, wassentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionageand terrorism. A 10-member bench of the ICJ on May 18 had restrainedPakistan from executing Jadhav till adjudication of the case. “In keepingwith the Order of the International Court of Justice of 17 Janaury 2018,India today submitted its reply in the court in the case of KulbhushanJadhav,” the MEA said. It said India remains committed to make all possibleefforts to “secure and protect” the rights of Jadhav.
Following an order by the ICJ, India had filed its written pleadings in thecase on September 13, 2017 and Pakistan submitted its “counter memorial” onDecember 13 last. “Today, India filed its Reply to Pakistan’s submissionsto the court. Pakistan has been given time till July 17 by the court tofile its response (Rejoinder),” the MEA said.
India has been maintaining that the trial of Jadhav by a military court inPakistan was “farcical”. In its statement today, the MEA reiterated thisstand. Pakistan claims that its security forces arrested Jadhav fromrestive Balochistan province on March 3, 2016 after he reportedly enteredfrom Iran.
However, India maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he hadbusiness interests after retiring from the Navy. Jadhav’s sentencing hadevoked a sharp reaction in India. India had approached the ICJ for“egregious” violation of the provisions of the Vienna Convention onConsular Relations, 1963, by Pakistan in Jadhav’s case. Pakistan hasrepeatedly denied India consular access to Jadhav on the grounds that itwas not applicable in cases related to spies.