Links

Site search
Document search
Contact

The Court

History
Members of the Court
Presidency
Chambers and Committees
Judges ad hoc
How the Court Works
Financial Assistance to Parties
Annual Reports

The Registry

Registrar
Organizational Chart of the Registry
Texts governing the Registry
Library of the Court
Employment
Judicial Fellows Programme
Internships
Procurement

Cases

List of All Cases
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders

Basic Documents

Charter of the United Nations
Statute of the Court
Rules of Court
Practice Directions
Other Texts

Jurisdiction

Contentious Jurisdiction
Advisory Jurisdiction

Press Room

Press releases
Calendar
Media Services
Multimedia
Frequently Asked Questions

Practical Information

Directions
Visits
Basic Toolkit
Links
Frequently Asked Questions

Publications

Introduction

Permanent Court of International Justice

Series A: Collection of Judgments (1923-1930)
Series B: Collection of Advisory Opinions (1923-1930)
Series A/B: Collection of Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions (from 1931)
Series C: Acts and documents relating to Judgments and Advisory Opinions given by the Court / Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents
Series D: Acts and Documents concerning the organization of the Court
Series E: Annual Reports
Series F: General Indexes
Other documents


Français

Jadhav (India v. Pakistan)

Overview of the case

On 8 May 2017, India filed an Application instituting proceedings against Pakistan in respect of a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 “in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian national, Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav”, who had been sentenced to death by a military court in Pakistan in April 2017. India claimed that Pakistan had failed to inform it, without delay, of the arrest and detention of its national. It further contended that Mr. Jadhav had not been informed of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and that India’s consular officers had been denied access to Mr. Jadhav while he was in custody, detention and prison, and had been unable to converse and correspond with him, or arrange for his legal representation. As basis for the Court’s jurisdiction, India referred in its Application to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

On the same day, India also filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures, requesting the Court to direct Pakistan to “take all measures necessary to ensure that Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav is not executed” and to “ensure that no action is taken that might prejudice the rights of the Republic of India or Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav with respect to any decision th[e] Court may render on the merits of the case”.

By an Order dated 18 May 2017, the Court directed Pakistan to “take all measures at its disposal” to ensure that Mr. Jadhav would not be executed pending a final decision in the case, and to inform the Court of all the measures taken in implementation of that Order. It also decided that, until the Court had given its final decision, it would remain seised of the matters which formed the subject matter of the Order.

Public hearings on the merits of the case were held from 18 to 21 February 2019. In its Judgment of 17 July 2019, the Court first outlined the background of the dispute, before concluding that it had jurisdiction to entertain India’s claims based on alleged violations of the Vienna Convention. The Court next addressed the three objections to admissibility raised by Pakistan, which were based on India’s alleged abuse of process, abuse of rights and unlawful conduct. The Court concluded that India’s Application was admissible.

Turning to the merits of the case, the Court examined in turn each of Pakistan’s three contentions concerning the applicability of the Vienna Convention. Having found that none of the arguments raised by Pakistan could be upheld, the Court concluded that the Vienna Convention was applicable in the case, “regardless of the allegations that Mr. Jadhav was engaged in espionage activities”.

Next, the Court examined India’s claim that Pakistan had acted in violation of its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention, by failing to inform India, without delay, of Mr. Jadhav’s detention. The Court observed that Pakistan did not contest India’s assertion that Mr. Jadhav had not been informed of his rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention, and thus concluded that Pakistan had breached its obligation under that provision.

As regards Pakistan’s alleged breach of its obligation to inform India, without delay, of the arrest and detention of Mr. Jadhav, as provided for in Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention, the Court found that since Pakistan had failed to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights, it was under an obligation to inform India’s consular post of his arrest and detention, that obligation also being implied by the rights of consular officers, under Article 36, paragraph 1 (c) of the Convention, to visit the national, “to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation”. The Court then pointed out that Pakistan had notified India of Mr. Jadhav’s arrest and detention on 25 March 2016, some three weeks after his arrest; taking account of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considered that Pakistan had thus breached its obligation to inform the consular post “without delay”, as required by Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention.

The Court then turned to India’s third claim concerning Pakistan’s alleged failure to allow Indian consular officers to communicate with Mr. Jadhav, recalling in this regard that “Article 36, paragraph 1, creates individual rights, which, by virtue of Article I of the Optional Protocol, may be invoked in this Court by the national State of the detained person”. It being undisputed that Pakistan had not granted any Indian consular officer access to Mr. Jadhav, the Court was of the view that India’s alleged failure to co‑operate in the investigation process in Pakistan did not relieve Pakistan of its obligation to grant consular access, and did not justify Pakistan’s denial of access to Mr. Jadhav by consular officers of India. Further, Mr. Jadhav’s choice to be represented by a defending officer qualified for legal representation did not dispense with the consular officers’ right to arrange for his legal representation. The Court therefore concluded that Pakistan had breached the obligations incumbent on it under Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the Vienna Convention, by denying India’s consular officers access to Mr. Jadhav, contrary to their right to visit him, converse and correspond with him, and arrange for his legal representation.

With regard to India’s contention that it was entitled to restitutio in integrum, its request for the Court to annul the decision of the military court and restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or conviction, and its further request for the Court to direct Pakistan to take steps to annul the decision of the military court, release Mr. Jadhav and facilitate his safe passage to India, the Court found that the submissions made by India could not be upheld. The Court also found, however, that Pakistan was under an obligation to provide, by means of its own choosing, effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence of Mr. Jadhav, so as to ensure that full weight was given to the effect of the violation of the rights set forth in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.


This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2017/5

Public sitting held on Monday 15 May 2017, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) case
Procedure(s): Provisional measures
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2017/6

Public sitting held on Monday 15 May 2017, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) case
Procedure(s): Provisional measures
Available in:
Original Language
Translation
(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2019/1

Public sitting held on Monday 18 February 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan)
Available in:
Original Language

Verbatim record 2019/2

Public sitting held on Tuesday 19 February 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan)
Available in:
Original Language

Verbatim record 2019/3

Public sitting held on Wednesday 20 February 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan)
Available in:
Original Language

Verbatim record 2019/4

Public sitting held on Thursday 21 February 2019, at 4:30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan)
Available in:
Original Language

Orders

Order of 13 June 2017

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
English French Bilingual

Order of 17 January 2018

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
English French

Judgments

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2019/4

Summary of the Judgment of 17 July 2019
Available in:
English French

Press releases

Press release 2017/16

9 May 2017
The Republic of India institutes proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Available in:
English French

Press release 2017/17

10 May 2017
Proceedings instituted by the Republic of India against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Urgent Communication to Pakistan from the President under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court
Available in:
English French

Press release 2017/18

10 May 2017
Proceedings instituted by the Republic of India against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to hold public hearings on Monday 15 May 2017
Available in:
English French

Press release 2017/20

15 May 2017
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by India - The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2017/21

17 May 2017
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to deliver its Order tomorrow on Thursday 18 May 2017
Available in:
English French

Press release 2017/22

18 May 2017
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) - Provisional Measures - The Court indicates to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that it must take “all measures at its disposal” to prevent the execution of an Indian national, Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, pending final judgment of the Court
Available in:
English French

Press release 2017/25

16 June 2017
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2018/4

19 January 2018
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) - The Court authorizes the submission of a Reply by India and a Rejoinder by Pakistan and fixes the time-limits for the filing of these written pleadings
Available in:
English French

Press release 2018/51

3 October 2018
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 18 to Thursday 21 February 2019
Available in:
English French

Press release 2019/8

21 February 2019
Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan) - Conclusion of the public hearings - The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
English French

Press release 2019/30

4 July 2019
Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Wednesday 17 July 2019 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
English French

Press release 2019/31

17 July 2019
Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan) - The Court finds that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian national, Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, has acted in breach of the obligations incumbent on it under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Available in:
English French

© International Court of Justice 2019 – All rights reserved.