Kulbhushan Jadhav verdict: What ICJ ruled in India’s favour and what it did not

The Hague: India has plenty to smile about after the International Court of Justice ruled in its favour in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. The ruling was in favour of India 15 votes to 1.

Most of the pleas made by India were granted by the ICJ. Let us take a look at what the ICJ ruled in India's favour and what it did not.

In India's favour:

The International Court of Justice has suspended the death sentence awarded to former naval officer, Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Ruling 15 votes to 1 in India's favour, President of the Court, Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said that the death sentence should remain suspended until Pakistan effectively reviews and reconsiders the conviction/sentence in the light of Pakistan's breach of Article 36 (1), which deals with consular access and notification.

The ICJ ruled that the Vienna Convention has been violated by Pakistan by denying consular access to Jadhav. India had said that consular access is a basic tenet of the Vienna Convention. Not only was Jadhav denied this, but the way in which Pakistan Army and other officials treated Jadhav, his wife and mother does not show the failing state in good light.

The ICJ found that Pakistan deprived India the right t communicate and have access to Jadhav, to visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation. The court said hence Pakistan has breached obligations incumbent upon it under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

What it did not rule in India's favour:

The ICJ rejected some of the remedies sought by India. This included annulment of the Pakistan military court decision convicting Jadhav.

India had also sought for his release and a safe passage to India. This too was not considered by the ICJ.