Indian national Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav was born in the city of Sangli in the Indian state of Maharashtra on April 15, 1969, according to a medical report released by the Foreign Office.
However, a fake passport for Jadhav under the pseudonym Hossein Mubarak Patel, showed he was born on Aug 30, 1968.
The cover name, he explained in a confessional video released by Inter-Services Public Relations last year, was taken for “intelligence gathering for Indian agencies”.
A resident of Mumbai’s suburban Powai neighbourhood, Jadhav belongs to a family of police officers.
In his statement, the Indian national said he is currently a serving officer in the Indian Navy ─ a claim India has denied.
He added that he joined the National Defence Academy in 1987, and then the Indian Navy in 1991, where he served until December 2001. After the parliament attack, he said he began to ‘contribute his services’ towards information and intelligence gathering in India.
“I am still a serving officer in the Indian Navy and will be due for retirement by 2022 as a commissioned officer in the Indian Navy,” the spy confessed.
India says he is a former Indian Navy officer.
Members of his Mumbai-based family told The Indian Express last year that Jadhav had become a businessman after taking premature retirement from the Navy, and travelled often in connection with his business.
A report in DNA India claimed Jadhav was “engaged in a legitimate business of operating ferries from the Iranian port town of Bandar Abbas”. Jadhav said he had commenced intelligence operations in 2003, and established a business in Chahbahar, Iran, where he was able to go undetected and visit Karachi in 2003 and 2004.
He was picked up by Indian spy agency Research and Analysis Wing at the end of 2013, and has been directing various subversive activities in Karachi and Balochistan. His job, he said, was to hold meetings with Baloch insurgents and collaborate with them to carry out activities “of a criminal nature, leading to the killing or maiming of Pakistani citizens.”
Jadhav, in pursuit of targets set by his RAW handlers, was arrested by Pakistani authorities on March 3, 2016, when he attempted to cross over into the country from the Saravan border in Iran.
India, however, alleges that Jadhav was abducted by Pakistan from Iran, according to IndiaToday.
Indian intelligence officials suspected that Jadhav’s phone was under surveillance by the Pakistani intelligence, and that his habits and mannerisms, including phone calls in Marathi to his family, gave away his identity. Since Jadhav’s arrest, India has been denied consular access to him, although he was provided with a defending officer as per legal provisions during his Field General Court Martial trial.
He was sentenced to death by the FGCM on April 10, 2017.
ICJ rejects India’s plea for Jadhav’s return, grants consular access.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday announced its verdict on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case, ruling that Jadhav be allowed consular access immediately and asking Pakistan to ensure “effective review and reconsideration of his conviction and sentences”.
The ICJ, however, rejected all other remedies sought by India, which included the annulment of the military court decision convicting Jadhav, restricting Pakistani from executing the sentence, securing Jadhav’s release and ordering his return to India. Pakistan’s team, headed by Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan, had reached The Hague earlier in the day to hear the verdict. The team also included Foreign Office Spokesperson Dr Muhammad Faisal.
The ICJ said that even though it had found Pakistan in violation of Article 36 the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), “it is not the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav which are to be regarded as a violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.”
The most the ICJ said it could do was to order Pakistan to cease violation of Article 36 and review the case in light of how that violation may have affected the case’s outcome.“The Court notes that Pakistan acknowledges that the appropriate remedy in the present case would be effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence,” it observed.
To this end, Pakistan was directed to immediately inform Jadhav of his rights under Article 36, grant India consular access, and then review the case while considering, under the laws of Pakistan, how not doing so earlier may have impacted the case’s outcome.
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention simply states that when a national of a foreign country is arrested, they must be informed of the right to have their country’s consulate notified and should also have the right to regular consultation with their consulate’s officials during their detention and trial.
Pakistan had argued that Article 36 is not applicable to persons believed to be involved in espionage.
“The Court considers that the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention, and its implications for the principles of a fair trial, should be fully examined and properly addressed during the review and reconsideration process,” the court directed.
“In particular, any potential prejudice and the implications for the evidence and the right of defence of the accused should receive close scrutiny during the review and reconsideration,” it said.
“The Court notes that the obligation to provide effective review and reconsideration can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means is left to Pakistan,” it added. However, it stressed that, “Pakistan shall take all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration, including, if necessary, by enacting appropriate legislation.”
While that matter is decided, Pakistan has been directed to suspend the execution of the death penalty awarded to Jadhav.
Source. Dawn.com
