Thread by @AmberMDarr

1. Have finally read judgment in #Jadhav case. The judgment does NOT find that Jadhav was a spy. Equally it does NOT direct Pakistan to return Jadhav to India asap. However, #ICJ does find Pakistan in breach of its obligations under the Vienna Convention. More highlights follow:

2. The matter was before ICJ because: Both India and Pakistan have signed the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and are parties to the Optional Protocol WITHOUT reservations. This means that all disputes regarding the Convention MUST be brought before the ICJ. #Jadhav #ICJ

3.Pakistan raised 3 objections to the admissibility of India’s Application. ICJ rejected all 3: (a) Pakistan said India had abused ICJ procedure by seeking a stay of execution. ICJ rejected this citing ‘considerable uncertainty’ in Pakistan’s court procedures #Jadhav #ICJ

3. (b) Pakistan argued India abused its rights under International Law by failing to provide Jadhav’s passport. ICJ rejected this b/se Pakistan had throughout acted as though Jadhav was an Indian national & evidence before the court left no doubt in this regard. #Jadhav #ICJ

3. (c) Pakistan argued India had not acted with ‘clean hands’. ICJ rejected this objection because Pakistan failed to explain why India’s behaviour would have prevented Pakistan from complying with its international legal obligations. #Jadhav #ICJverdict

4. Pakistan's espionage claim: Pakistan argued that Art 36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations did not apply to ‘prima facie cases of espionage’. ICJ held that the Art 36 did not allow any such exceptions. #Jadhav #ICJverdict

5. ICJ did NOT give any finding on whether Jadhav was a spy or not because that was NOT the issue before the ICJ. It was to decide whether or not Art 36 applied & after detailed consideration of the law it held that Art 36 did apply to the Jadhav case #Jadhav #ICJverdict

6. Re violations of Art 36. (a) India claimed that Pakistan had failed inform Jadhav of his rights. Pakistan claimed it had informed him. ICJ found in favour of India. 15:1. #Jadhav #ICJverdict

6. (b) India claimed Pakistan failed to inform India of Jadhav’s arrest. Pakistan did not contest this. ICJ found Pakistan to be in breach of the Vienna Convention for the delay of three weeks. #Jadhav #ICJverdict

6. (c) India claimed Pakistan had failed to provide consular access to Jadhav. Pakistan did not dispute this but argued that it was only required to provide access according to its own laws. ICJ held. Pakistan in breach of the Vienna Convention in this regard #Jadhav #ICJverdict

7. ICJ rejected all of the India’s alleged violations of international law invoked by Pakistan in support of its contentions based on abuse of rights constitute a defence on the merits. #Jadhav #ICJverdict

8. ICJ allowed such remedies as were permissible in the exercise of its jurisdiction. It could not annul the military court conviction & order Jadhav’s release and return BECAUSE IT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DO SO, not because it found for Pakistan. #Jadhav #ICJverdict

9. However, ICJ noted that any breach of international law, requires a reparation. And that reparation means doing away entirely with the effect of the illegal act. This is an obligation for Pakistan to fulfil #Jadhav #ICJverdict

10. ICJ therefore directed Pakistan to review and reconsider the execution, and to do so in compliance with all international legal obligations, not merely consider clemency procedures. #Jadhav #ICJverdict