Thread by @reema_omer

Some key facts about the #Jadhav case before ICJ:

1. Pakistan acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 1976

The OP gives ICJ jurisdiction over disputes that arise from the treaty

This is different from the ICJ’s generic jurisdiction

2. Art. 36(1), VCCR says foreign nationals arrested/detained in another country have the right to meet their consular officials

India claims its requests for consular access to Jadhav were repeatedly denied by Pakistan, which means Pakistan breached Art. 36 of VCCR

3. PK claims Art. 36(1) of VCCR not applicable to spies or “terrorists” due to the nature of the offences of espionage and terrorism - which means PK didn’t breach the treaty by refusing consular access to #Jadhav

This is the key legal issue in the case ICJ will have to decide

4. PK also relying on a 2008 bilateral treaty with India, which says in cases of “arrest, detention...made on...security grounds, each side may examine the case on its merits”

PK says this agreement overrides obligations under VCCR

This is the second legal question in the case

5. Given the limitations of its jurisdiction in such cases, ICJ cannot act as an appeallate court - which means it cannot go through the evidence against Jadhav and determine his guilt/innocence

A lot of what we hear in the media about this case, therefore, is irrelevant

6. Pursuant to its jurisdictional competencies, ICJ can only decide whether PK breached Art 36 VCCR and order related relief. This could include, for example, directions to PK to “review/reconsider” Jadhav’s conviction/sentence, or guarantee similar breaches won’t occur in future

7. Finally, let’s not expect an immediate judgment

While there is no way to accurately predict such things, in previous cases involving similar disputes judgments have been delivered even up to a year after oral hearings conclude