Thread by @reema_omer

1. Tomorrow, the International Court of Justice will give its decision in the #Jadhav case

Amidst all the noise about this case, it’s important to remember the key question before the Court:

Did Pakistan violate Art. 36(1) of the VCCR by denying consular access to Jadhav?

2. Pakistan claims Art. 36(1) of VCCR is not applicable to spies or “terrorists” due to the inherent nature of the offences of espionage and terrorism

Can such an exception be read into the VCCR? This is the key issue the ICJ will have to decide

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

PK says this agreement overrides obligations under VCCR. Does it? This is the second legal issue in the case

4. Given 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 legally irrelevant

5. 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 and guarantee similar breaches won’t occur in future

6. Therefore, even if ICJ finds Pakistan in breach of its obligations under VCCR, it is highly unlikely it would grant many of the reliefs sought by India such Jadhav’s release/safe passage to India

Direction for retrial before a civilian court would also be unprecedented