Pakistan has rejected inaccurate and misleading assertions by the IndianMinistry of External Affairs in Commander Jadhav’s Case
The Foreign Office, in a statement, categorically rejected Indian MEA’sbaseless allegations regarding legal proceedings currently taking place inthe case of Indian Naval Commander Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.
It is evident that by casting aspersions on the Indian High Commission’sown legal Counsel, the Indian government is looking for an escape from thelegal proceedings in Commander Jadhav case.
The Government of India is reminded that in pursuance of the judgment ofInternational Court of Justice, Pakistan had invited the Indian HighCommission to meet with Commander Jadhav and appoint a lawyer on his behalfso that proceedings to review and reconsider Commander Jadhav’s convictioncould commence. However, during the course of diplomatic exchanges, theIndian High Commission refused to instruct a lawyer itself, as in theirview this would amount to a waiver of India’s sovereign immunity.Resultantly, the government of Pakistan was constrained to initiateproceedings for appointment of a state counsel for Commander Jadhav.
During the course of the proceedings, to show the discrepancy in the Indianposition, the Attorney-General for Pakistan cited the case of Mr. MuhammadIsmail, an Indian national currently in custody in Pakistan, where theIndian High Commission had instructed Mr. Noon as its lawyer.
Contrary to the false statement by the MEA, no attempt was made to link thecases of Commander Jadhav with another Indian prisoner Ismail. The twocases are and remain entirely distinct. Reference to the case of Mr. Ismailwas only for purpose of showing the discrepancy and inconsistency in theIndian position.
It is reiterated that in line with the judgment of ICJ, Pakistan hasalready provided consular access to the Indian High Commission twice andhas taken all necessary steps for effective review and reconsideration inthe case. The offer of a third consular access is still there.
The Indian side is once again urged to desist from the use of its usualdiversionary and dilatory tactics and instead take practical steps so thatlegal proceedings could be duly concluded and full effect could be given tothe judgment of ICJ.