Kulbhushan Jadhav - Developments

[mendosa]

This is off topic but look at the GEM of her tweet:


One terrorist nuclear state supporting another terrorist nuclear state. Both want to co-operate to obliterate word.

I'm surprised that she is only allowing her husband to sleep with her. This monopoly should end.

 

[sayareakd]

30000000000000000000000000000000000000000

cant see the tweet.......post screenshot.

 

[sukhish]

It doesn't matter if it's 'just' a stay order. It is India throwing a tantrum to the international community, which is a welcome move. The message to the international community is clear "If you want to set high moral standards globally, and you expect us to abide by them, we are going to bring to your notice whenever there are aberrations. If you refuse to mediate now, you will lose the moral authority to intervene on behalf of the same international norms if India takes military action tomorrow"

They had to accept our stance because they knew that we were looking for an excuse to escalate the matter militarily if it was rejected. Basically not ALL forms of 'internationalization' is bad. Whenever it behooves us to blackmail the world community to do our bidding we should internationalize matters and force them to take a stand on sticky issues, after all they are the ones who make us pay a price for not abiding by those lofty laws, so they should do the same when a violation is brought to their notice.

Similarly, we should bring to their notice all instances of forced Christian conversions, Indians being shot in the US, Blacks being hunted down by NYPD as aberrations from the norms which they have imposed upon others. The US has an annual summit where they hear the human rights conditions pleas from all nations. When China got pissed, they made their own Human Rights tribunal and started taking cases about abuse of minorities in USA. Immediately, the US stopped talking about Chinese human rights violations.

This is the only language these Chrislamists understand. Trap them in their own 'lawfare' doctrine.

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/kulbhushan-jadhav-pakistan-icj-hague-india-4649866/

Between Pakistan and India, it is usually Pakistan that seeks to internationalise disputes between the two countries. After the Mumbai attacks of 2008, without very much effort at all, India was able to make an international argument against Pakistan – but even then, the Indian state has been consistently bilateralist in its approach. For many Pakistanis, this has always seemed to be an Indian vulnerability, the thinking being that India must surely be scared of having international scrutiny of its behaviour in Kashmir. Indians have traditionally seen it differently. Denying third party or multilateral involvement is a pillar of the fierce independence and sovereignty that Nehruvian statehood insists upon: “India is big enough to manage its own center of gravity”. “India doesn’t need any power to help it manage its affairs”. “India is enough for India”.

So taking an issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seems like an odd choice, especially at a time when India claims to have successfully left Pakistan far behind economically, and isolated politically. If the hype in India is to be believed, there has never been a better time to deal with Pakistani bilaterally. Moreover, the Kulbushan Jhadav case hardly seems like a slam-dunk, given his clouded status. No one can explain, just how he ended up in this mess. No one in India has denied that Kulbushan Jhadav is a serviceman from the Indian Navy. And no one has denied that he was either across, or close to the border between Pakistan and Iran.

Going to the ICJ reeks of desperation. The Indian government, by its own 1974 declaration of jurisdiction for the ICJ, bars matters like the Jhadav case from being examined by the ICJ. Even if the Indian government claims an exception in this matter, there remains the challenge of Pakistan accepting ICJ jurisdiction on the issue. Barring all this, even if the ICJ was to take a position on the issue, it would not be in a position to enforce it. In short, if decision-makers in Pakistan have determined that Jhadav must die, then it seems unlikely that there is much the ICJ can do to stop this from happening.

All of this has to be known to Indian decision-makers. Many Pakistanis have a deep and abiding respect for the Indian strategic community: it doesn’t fly off the handle or make decisions under duress or out of desperation. And this adds to the mystifying quality of New Delhi’s move to invoke the ICJ in the Jhadav case.

Win or lose at The Hague, India is not likely to get Jhadav back by bullying, or “lawyering” Pakistan. A delicate and fragile set of informal norms defines the military-to-military relations between the two countries. Among them is rumoured to be the “sshh, here’s your guy” code. It is a mechanism that ensures neither country ever has high value intel assets stuck in the other. It is bad for business. But a lot has changed, and is changing in India. The Modi government has advertised this cessation of business-as-usual. Now that the ICJ is the scene for one of the conversations India wants to have with Pakistan, it is plausible that conversations Pakistan has been wanting to have with India, may also open up. Will Pakistan take India to the ICJ over one or several of its complaints related to Kashmir? If we are on Step One of the escalatory ladder of multilateralism, what is step two? And how far does the ladder reach? Sadly, we may spend the next several months and years exploring this kind of question. A terrible outcome for those of us that believe in a peaceful and normalised region for our people.

The writer is former adviser to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He writes a weekly column for The News.

 

[sukhish]

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/kulbhushan-jadhav-pakistan-icj-hague-india-4649866/

Between Pakistan and India, it is usually Pakistan that seeks to internationalise disputes between the two countries. After the Mumbai attacks of 2008, without very much effort at all, India was able to make an international argument against Pakistan – but even then, the Indian state has been consistently bilateralist in its approach. For many Pakistanis, this has always seemed to be an Indian vulnerability, the thinking being that India must surely be scared of having international scrutiny of its behaviour in Kashmir. Indians have traditionally seen it differently. Denying third party or multilateral involvement is a pillar of the fierce independence and sovereignty that Nehruvian statehood insists upon: “India is big enough to manage its own center of gravity”. “India doesn’t need any power to help it manage its affairs”. “India is enough for India”.

So taking an issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seems like an odd choice, especially at a time when India claims to have successfully left Pakistan far behind economically, and isolated politically. If the hype in India is to be believed, there has never been a better time to deal with Pakistani bilaterally. Moreover, the Kulbushan Jhadav case hardly seems like a slam-dunk, given his clouded status. No one can explain, just how he ended up in this mess. No one in India has denied that Kulbushan Jhadav is a serviceman from the Indian Navy. And no one has denied that he was either across, or close to the border between Pakistan and Iran.

Going to the ICJ reeks of desperation. The Indian government, by its own 1974 declaration of jurisdiction for the ICJ, bars matters like the Jhadav case from being examined by the ICJ. Even if the Indian government claims an exception in this matter, there remains the challenge of Pakistan accepting ICJ jurisdiction on the issue. Barring all this, even if the ICJ was to take a position on the issue, it would not be in a position to enforce it. In short, if decision-makers in Pakistan have determined that Jhadav must die, then it seems unlikely that there is much the ICJ can do to stop this from happening.

All of this has to be known to Indian decision-makers. Many Pakistanis have a deep and abiding respect for the Indian strategic community: it doesn’t fly off the handle or make decisions under duress or out of desperation. And this adds to the mystifying quality of New Delhi’s move to invoke the ICJ in the Jhadav case.

Win or lose at The Hague, India is not likely to get Jhadav back by bullying, or “lawyering” Pakistan. A delicate and fragile set of informal norms defines the military-to-military relations between the two countries. Among them is rumoured to be the “sshh, here’s your guy” code. It is a mechanism that ensures neither country ever has high value intel assets stuck in the other. It is bad for business. But a lot has changed, and is changing in India. The Modi government has advertised this cessation of business-as-usual. Now that the ICJ is the scene for one of the conversations India wants to have with Pakistan, it is plausible that conversations Pakistan has been wanting to have with India, may also open up. Will Pakistan take India to the ICJ over one or several of its complaints related to Kashmir? If we are on Step One of the escalatory ladder of multilateralism, what is step two? And how far does the ladder reach? Sadly, we may spend the next several months and years exploring this kind of question. A terrible outcome for those of us that believe in a peaceful and normalised region for our people.

The writer is former adviser to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He writes a weekly column for The News.

Please read the last paragraph very carefully, it seems some one in Indian express has already though of what I was thinking. pakistan will abide by ICJ ruling in bits and pieces as much India abides by kashmir ruling plain and simple. it was a ploy by them and GOI showed its desperation to get some ratings from dumb brain bhakts. ICJ and US will become third party mediators for kashmir as simple. and there goes the theory that kashmir is a bilateral issue.

 

[Dovah]

Please read the last paragraph very carefully, it seems some one in Indian express has already though of what I was thinking. pakistan will abide by ICJ ruling in bits and pieces as much India abides by kashmir ruling plain and simple. it was a ploy by them and GOI showed its desperation to get some ratings from dumb brain bhakts. ICJ and US will become third party mediators for kashmir as simple. and there goes the theory that kashmir is a bilateral issue.

Sukhish, you are the kind of idiot that Pakis wish every Indian was.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

Sukhish, you are the kind of idiot that Pakis wish every Indian was.

are you sure about the second 'I' of the ID?!

 

[lcafanboy]

Army vows to punish killers of young Kashmiri Lieutenant Ummer Fayaz
Fayaz's body was found in Harmen area of Shopian in South Kashmir on Wednesday morning.

After the millitants killed 22-year-old Kashmiri Lieutenant Ummer Fayaz, the Indian Army has vowed to punish his killers. “I assure the family that the perpetrators of this heinous crime and dastardly act will not be spared,” said Lt Gen Abhay Krishna, General Officer Commanding-in Chief of South Western Command and Colonel of Rajputana Riffles.

Fayaz’s body was found in Harmen area of Shopian in South Kashmir on Wednesday morning. Defence Minister Arun Jaitley called it a ‘dastardly act of cowardice’. Fayaz was abducted from Batpura village where he had gone to attend his cousin’s wedding.

“Abduction & murder of Lt. Ummer Fayaz by terrorists in Shopian is a dastardly act of cowardice. This young officer from J&K was a role model,” Defence Minister Jaitley said in a tweet.

Fayaz, who hailed from Kulgam district in South Kashmir, was commissioned into the Army last year on December 10. He was a part of the Rajputana Rifles.

This was Fayaz’s first leave which he took after joining the Army. His father runs a small apple business.

“This marks a watershed moment in Kashmir Valley and people of Kashmir will decisively turn the tide against terrorism,” Lt Gen Krishna was quoted as saying by PTI.

The Officer was from 2 RAJ RIF of the Tololing Fame of 1999. The regiment is proud to have companies of exclusive Muslim Troops and has a rich history of chivalry and courage. Rest assured, the officer will be avenged by the Indian Army, teams are out now, no prisoners orders are out.

The biggest armed group's own in Kashmir has been assaulted, retribution is assured!

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...oung-kashmiri-lieutenant-ummer-fayaz-4650025/

 

[lcafanboy]

After 2 infiltration bids at LoC in 4 days, Pak-based terror modules planning Uri-like attack: Kashmir police
According to sources, "In both the recent attempts, a group of 6-7 terrorists tried to cross the LoC. The infiltration attempt that took place near Toran in Uri sector near Gulmarg was foiled by the Army. Heavily armed terrorists were pushed back." One terrorist may have been hit as there was a trail of blood along the LoC, sources added

Sources say a fidayeen alert has been issued in Kashmir. In the first bid in Uri, a group of 6 terrorists could have managed to enter 4 days ago.

If intelligence sources are to be believed, terrorists may target the army establishment or a high-value target in Srinagar.

The Pakistan-based terror module could be planning another Uri-like attack. Sources say, "The fidayeens usually attack in the first month after infiltrating into enemy territory. A manhunt operation has also been launched."
Army sources say operations have been being carried out in Uri to flush out militants.

Due to the operation, the Uri-Muzaffarabad cross LoC bus service has been suspended.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...kistan-fidayeen-gulmarg-kashmir/1/950303.html

 

[vinuzap]

this summer will be messy , there will be lot of halal and jatka which will be taking place

there are only 5 discrict in kashmir which are major trouble maker and will be eradicated out

 

[lcafanboy]

30000000000000000000000000000

 

[vinuzap]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Consular_Relations

Vienna convention on consular relations.

he Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 is an international treaty that defines a framework for consularrelations between independent states. A consul normally operates out of an embassy in another country, and performs two functions: (1) protecting in the host country the interests of their countrymen, and (2) furthering the commercial and economic relations between the two states. While a consul is not a diplomat,[citation needed] they work out of the same premises, and under this treaty they are afforded most of the same privileges, including a variation of diplomatic immunity called consular immunity. The treaty has been ratified by 179 states.[1]

Key provisions[edit]
The treaty is an extensive document, containing 79 articles. Following is a basic overview of its key provisions. For a comprehensive enumeration of all articles, consult the original text.[2]

• Article 5. Thirteen functions of a consul are listed, including protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and its nationals, as well as developing the commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific relations between the two states.
• Article 23. The host nation may at any time and for any reason declare a particular member of the consular staff to be persona non grata. The sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this person may lose their consular immunity.
• Article 31. The host nation may not enter the consular premises, and must protect the premises from intrusion or damage.
• Article 35. Freedom of communication between the consul and their home country must be preserved. A consular bag must never be opened. A consular courier must never be detained.
• Article 36. Foreign nationals who are arrested or detained be given notice "without delay" of their right to have their embassy or consulate notified of that arrest. If the detained foreign national so requests, the police must fax that notice to the embassy or consulate, which can then check up on the person. The notice to the consulate can be as simple as a fax, giving the person's name, the place of arrest, and, if possible, something about the reason for the arrest or detention.

Pakistan took India to the ICJ in 1999 after its military plane was shot down in Indian air space over the Rann of Kutch. India contested the case on the issue of jurisdiction and the ICJ upheld New Delhi’s position

 

[vinuzap]

" Ever any pakistani wondered why Col. Habib is not in RAW possession"


Kulbhushan Jadhav: Pakistan Stands on the Wrong Side of Law

The sentencing of Kulbhushan Jadhav by Pakistan’s Field General Court Martial is miscarriage of criminal justice violating the fundamental human rights of free and fair trial. The issue with international human rights law is that though it created a treaty obligation, it does not really create any international obligation vis-à-vis another state.

Another problem with the violation of international human rights law is that there is no international judicial forum for such violation to be challenged by a State, albeit mechanisms are there for an individual to challenge a domestic court’s verdict, viz, European Court of Human Rights and Human Rights Council.

Such bodies can be only accessed by individuals provided their States have signed such international instruments.



Neither India nor Pakistan is body to any such instrument, hence no remedy on account of violation of International Human Rights law is available to Jadhav.

However, India can take help from the UN and bring this matter before the International Court of Justice as a matter of violation of treaty obligation owed to India, therefore, creating an international obligation for Pakistan. Let’s see, how.


Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
The obligation in this case flows from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (the Treaty), which came into force on 19 March 1967. India and Pakistan both signed and ratified the Treaty on 28 November 1977 and 14 April 1969 respectively.

The Treaty also has an ‘Optional Protocol’ to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, 1963 (the Protocol). The Protocol entered into force on 19 March 1967. Interestingly both India and Pakistan are parties to this protocol too. The two countries became party to the Protocol on 28 November 1977 and 29 March 1976 respectively.




Two Different Vienna Conventions
It is imperative here to underscore the distinction between the two Vienna Conventions, one pertaining to diplomatic relations while the other one relates to consular relations.

1) The Vienna Convention on diplomatic relation are rules protecting the ambassadors by authorising them to carry out their duties in the Mission established in the receiving State.

2) The Consular Relations Convention deals with the establishment of consular post and empowering the consular to discharge its function as enumerated in Article 5 and Article 36 thereof, Article 5 of the treaty provides for the consular functions.

Subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving State, representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other authorities of the receiving State, for the purpose of obtaining, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals, where, because of absence or any other reason, such nationals are unable at the proper time to assume the defence of their rights and interests.Article 5, Consular Relations Convention
Article 36 provides for the right of the consular to communicate and contact the nationals of the sending States.

Consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State.Article 36, Consular Relations Convention
Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action. Article 36, Consular Relations Convention

Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, who Islamabad claims is an Indian spy, was on Monday sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. (Photo Courtesy: YouTube/Dawn News)
Approaching the International Court of Justice
India shall take this matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) because it is the only forum offering a ray of hope in Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case. India can take this matter to the ICJ under the protocol as both the countries have ratified it.

The protocol provides for compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ for resolution of any dispute arising between parties of the treaty. It will be a sheer waste, being a member of the UN, if we don’t take recourse to it. India can invoke the jurisdiction of the ICJ from the protocol and not under Article 36, ICJ statute.




Earlier Precedents at the ICJ
There are three precedents at the ICJ where a national of another State has been prosecuted and sentenced, where both are parties to the treaty and the protocol. First is the instance of a dispute, Paraguay vs USA in 1998. The next in line is the dispute, Germany vs USA, 1999, it is also known as the La Grand case.

Lastly, the case of Mexico vs USA, 2003, also known as the ‘Avena and Other Mexican National’ case.

All the cases involved the death penalty awarded by the USA to the nationals of Paraguay, Germany and Mexico in violation of the treaty. Interestingly, all the petitioners, i.e. Paraguay, Germany and Mexico were provided with relief they were seeking, i.e. an injunction on the death penalty. Court ordered the USA not to carry out the execution till the issue of merit is settled.

India Has a Strong Case
Pakistan stands on the wrong side of the law in the case, first the trial itself is violative of the international human rights law. Secondly, Pakistan has violated Article 36 of the treaty; in the La Grand case, the ICJ had decided that violation of Article 36 requires a review and reconsideration of both the conviction and the sentence in this case (La Grand, 1999, ICJ, para 496-97).

La Grand also stated that no domestic law can deprive the right of an individual “which guarantees that full weight is given to the infringement of his rights as set forth in the convention”.

Let’s not make the UN membership a ceremonial exercise or use it as a platform for political rhetoric. Here is a chance we can use this platform to save a precious Indian life, let UN be useful to us.

 

[dhananjay1]

Next time ICJ would ask Indians to stop hanging Jihadis on the bases of hooman rights. Looks like Indians haven't learned anything since 1947.

 

[vinuzap]

which jihadi and who wlll file it :

mere presence of pakistani and chinese troops in POK is an act of aggression and go against it

indians are fooled by most of libtards and also none of the international community is keen on plebiscite

pakistan has gifted 20%of its kashmiri land to china

 

[lcafanboy]

International Court of Justice to hear Kulbhushan Jadhav's case on May 15
TIMESOFINDIA.COM | 8 mins ago

Former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav
NEW DELHI: The next hearing in the case of former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav at the International Court of Justice that has stayed his execution in Pakistan, will take place on May 15, the judicial body said in a press release on Wednesday.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings on Monday 15 May 2017... in the proceedings insituted by the Republic of India on 8 May 2017 against the Islmaic Republic of Pakistan," the statement said.

The ICJ further stated the hearing will be devoted to the request for provisional relief submitted by India in the matter of Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Earlier, senior lawyer Harish Salve, who is representing India at the Hague said it had appealed to the ICJ for granting access to Jadhav under the provisions of the Vienna Convention.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

"We moved (the ICJ) for provisional relief. The counsel of the country to which the man belongs has the right of access to that person. The basic idea is that if you are caught in a place where you are a stranger, people from your country are there to help you," he said.

The Hague-based ICJ had on Tuesday issued a stay order on the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, who had been sentenced to hang by a Pakistani military court on charges of espionage.

India, in its appeal before the ICJ, has accused Pakistan of "egregious" (shocking) violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The plea said that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business activities after retiring from the Indian Navy, but Pakistan claimed he was arrested from Balochistan on March 3, 2016.

Pakistan army on Wednesday said it will respond at an "appropriate level" to any query by the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

 

[sayareakd]

Now is the right time to tweet about this...........Please make all effort to make it viral..........

 

[Hiranyaksha]

This is off topic but look at the GEM of her tweet:


One terrorist nuclear state supporting another terrorist nuclear state. Both want to co-operate to obliterate word.

LOL, but fake account.
30 characters zindabad zindabad

 

[dhananjay1]

which jihadi and who wlll file it :

mere presence of pakistani and chinese troops in POK is an act of aggression and go against it

indians are fooled by most of libtards and also none of the international community is keen on plebiscite

pakistan has gifted 20%of its kashmiri land to china

According to "international community" Kashmir is a "disputed" region.

 

[vinuzap]

and for that disputed region as per UN resolution pakistan has to vacate POK before any resolution to take place and forget doing that it has gifted 20% of its land to china(a third country in progress)

that is why there is no locus standi for such thing in ICJ

 

[Butter Chicken]

I think Ganja and Army chief have made a deal.Army will supress Dawn and Panama leaks,Ganja will stay away from Jadhav case