Dear Terrorists of India,
Indian Terrorist Master Mind moved to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to get the favourable verdict on another Indian Terrorist. After the verdict, the Saffron Media, Sanghis and other Hardliners jumped high in the sky with sarcastic articles and news stuff in favour of Terrorist supportive Government of India. In fact neither verdict is in favours of Indian Terrorist on request of official terrorist nor Pak fails in front of ICJ.
I have got total compilation of 15 pages verdict. Without knowing and glance over the decision people from both the sides jolted and paid strong reactions. People from both the sides attended the debates and started uttered the wording even those who are not familiar with the process and did not know the concept of International law.
It is important for the illiterate people of India and Journalists to make them aware about the facts of the judgement, who did not want to give up any opportunity to give credit to the Government of Terrorist Master Mind and a man who is killer of Humanity and ‘Maut ka Saudagar’
India didn’t win, Pakistan didn’t lose.
The decision only relates to India’s request for provisional measures (which, by the way, doesn’t even include a request for granting consular access to Indian Terrorist).
Some salient features of the judgement which will open the illiteracy, short slightness and incompetence of Indian Media, who is giving credit to the Terrorist Master Mind with close eyes.
Please see the paragraph 15 of the decision.
“15. The Court may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded, but need not satisfy itself in a definitive manner that it has jurisdiction as regards the merits of the case (see, for example, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, para. 17).”
Terrorist and spy status of Sanghi Indian is still under surveillance
Pakistan has not failed to convince the International Court of Justice that Indian Sanghi is a terrorist and caught hold for the act of terrorism, as this is something that will be considered only at the merits stage of the case.
At this stage, ICJ wasn’t even looking to confirm whether the rights sought to be protected by India exit (i.e. consular access to an Indian Citizen convicted of activities subversive to the National security of Pakistan).
At this stage only it had decide whether such rights are reasonable to be adjudicated upon the merits of the case. Please see the paragraph 42 of the verdict.
“42. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which India wishes to see protected exist; it need only decide whether these rights are plausible (see above paragraph 35 and Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, para. 64)."
International Court of Justice yet to decide on consular access for Indian Sanghi Terrorist.
International Court of Justice has not determined yet whether to provide the compulsorily consular access to the people like terrorist and killer of Humanity the Sanghi Terrorist. Please see the below paragraph 43 of the decision.
“43. The rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform without delay the person concerned of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. Regarding Pakistan’s arguments that, first, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not apply to persons suspected of espionage or terrorism, and that, second, the rules applicable to the case at hand are provided in the 2008 Agreement, the Court considers that at this stage of the proceedings, where no legal analysis on these questions has been advanced by the Parties, these arguments do not provide a sufficient basis to exclude the plausibility of the rights claimed by India, for the same reasons provided above (see paragraphs 32-33).”
No decision on the death penalty.
There has been no observation or verdict by the ICJ on Indian Terrorist’s death penalty by the Pakistani Military Court. Fact is that point is not even discussed because it does not fall within the preview and jurisdiction of ICJ. Please the clause 56 of the verdict about the grant consular assess by Pakistan and whether the death penalty is lawful.
“56. The Court notes that the issues brought before it in this case do not concern the question whether a State is entitled to resort to the death penalty. As it has observed in the past, “the function of this Court is to resolve international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they arise out of the interpretation or application of international conventions, and not to act as a court of criminal appeal” (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 15, para. 25; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 5 February 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 89, para. 48).”
Pakistan can still argue on jurisdiction
The decision in no way affects the rights of Pakistan to submit arguments in respect of the jurisdiction of the ICJ to deal with this case and in relation to the merits of the case itself. Please see below paragraph 60 of the decision:
“60. The decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of India and Pakistan to submit arguments in respect of those questions.”
As usual Sanghi started appeasing to the Terrorist Government under the leadership of Master Mind and proved that Bhakts are myopic.
Zuber Ahmed Khan