Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Jadhav case and the right to consular assistance: ‘confessions’, spies, and remedies in international law

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of International Law

Abstract

This article starts by exploring the nature of the right under Article 36 as having the character of both being a state right and an individual human right as recognised by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights then the International Court of Justice and considers the remedies provided in past ICJ cases in terms of the “review and reconsideration” of the impugned domestic court decisions and the procedural and substantive aspects of that remedy in comparison with those ordered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The article then seeks to highlight that the general international law principle flowing from the Court’s pronouncement in the Chorzow Factory case that ‘reparations must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed’ and the case law showing the availability of consequential remedies when combined with the possibility of the Court recognising Article 36 VCCR as creating individual human rights and the particular facts of the Jadhav Case may mean that the remedies claimed by India are more likely than “aspirational.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, 596 UNTS (24 April 1963) 261.

  2. Luke T Lee, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: With Texts and Commentaries on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, United States-Soviet Consular Convention, 1964 and the Draft European Convention on Consular Functions (AW Sijthoff, Rule of Law Press, Leiden, 1966) 113.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid.

  5. Alexander Orakhelashvili, Judicial Competence and Judicial Remedies in the Avena Case, 18(1) Leiden J Intl L (2005) 31, 47.

  6. Article 1, Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes 1963, 596 UNTS (24 April 1963) 487.

  7. Rebecca E Woodman, International Miranda? Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 70 L J Kansas Bar Association (2001) 41.

  8. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion (1 October 1999), Inter American Court of Human Rights OC-16/99.

  9. Ibid.

  10. LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), Judgment, Jurisdiction, Admissibility, Merits [2001] ICJ Rep 466.

  11. Ibid [13].

  12. Ibid.

  13. At this stage, the legal effect of provisional measure was unclear with the English text of Article 41 of the Statute of the Court using voluntary language whilst the French text used mandatory language. This case confirmed their binding nature. Ibid.

  14. Ibid [73].

  15. Ibid 13 [74].

  16. Ibid 13 [77].

  17. Ibid 13 [91].

  18. Ibid 13 [125].

  19. Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States, Judgment on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Merits [2004] ICJ Rep 12.

  20. Ibid [3].

  21. Ibid [13 (1)].

  22. Ibid 22 [13 (2)].

  23. Ibid 22 [13 (3)].

  24. Ibid22 [13 (4)].

  25. Ibid 22 [13(2) (a–c)].

  26. Ibid 22 [121].

  27. Ibid 22 [131].

  28. Ibid.

  29. Ibid 22 [138].

  30. Ibid 22 [139].

  31. Ibid 22 [140].

  32. Medellin, Ramirez Cardenas, and Leal Garcia v United States, Admissibility and Merits, (7 August 2009) Inter-American Comm. H.R. Rep. No. 90/09.

  33. Ibid.

  34. ibid 35 [159].

  35. Ibid 35 [162, 163].

  36. ibid 35 [169(1)].

  37. ibid 35 [169(2)].

  38. Cesar Fierro v United States of America, Judgment Merits (29 December 2003,), Inter-American Comm. H.R. Rep. No. 99/03.

  39. ibid [17].

  40. Ibid.

  41. Ibid 41 [19].

  42. Ibid 41 [39].

  43. Ibid 41 [40].

  44. Ibid 41 [42].

  45. Sandra Babcock, Nevada’s Supreme Court Upholds ICJ Ruling on Consular Rights of Mexicans, Cornell Law School Death Penalty Worldwide Blog (25 September 2012) <http://blog.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/2012/09/nevadas-supreme-court-upholds-icj-ruling-on-consular-rights-of-mexicans.html>.

  46. Steve Charnovitz, Correcting America’s Continuing Failure to Comply with the Avena Judgment, 106 Am J Intl L (2012) 572–581.

  47. Ibid. Charnovitz strongly argues that Supreme Court’s decisions in these matters were wrong under American constitutional law.

  48. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America) [2009] ICJ Rep 3 [54].

  49. Ex Parte Humberto Leal Application, Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, June 27 2011, No. Wr-41,743-03

  50. A Zimmermann, K Oellers-Frahm, C Tomuschat, CJ Tams, and M Kashgar, The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (OUP, Oxford, 2012).

  51. John R Crook, Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, 99 Am J Intl L (2005) 490.

  52. John Quigley, The United States’ Withdrawal from International Court of Justice Jurisdiction in Consular Cases: Reasons and Consequences, 19 Duke J Comp Intl L (2009) 263. Quigley comes to the conclusion that under the rules of international law a State is not able to leave the Optional Protocol once they opt in although others argue that it is possible.

  53. I will leave it to the readers to make up their own mind about the possibly suspect camera work and whether the “confession” appears to be forced.

  54. The Jadhav Case (India v Pakistan) (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Order) (18 May 2017), [13] <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20170518-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf>.

  55. Ibid [13].

  56. Ibid 57 [13].

  57. Ibid 57 [14].

  58. Ibid 57 [1(4)].

  59. Ibid 57 [58].

  60. The Jadhav Case (India v Pakistan), Order Fixing Time Limits, (13 June 2017) <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20170613-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf>.

  61. The Jadhav Case (India v Pakistan) (Oral Submissions on Application for Preliminary Measure) (Verbatim Record) (India’s Arguments) (15 May 2017) <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20170515-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf>, The Jadhav Case (India v Pakistan) (Oral Submissions on Application for Preliminary Measure) (Verbatim Record), (Pakistan’s Arguments) (15 May 2017) <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20170515-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf>.

  62. The Jadhav Case (India v Pakistan) (Application Initiating Proceedings) (8 May 2017) <http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/19422.pdf>.

  63. Ibid 57 [58].

  64. Ashrutha Rai’s article on the effect of non-registration of a treaty on the EJIL Blog is very enlightening on whether the non-registration of the 2008 Bilateral Agreement means that the Court is precluded from considering its provisions: Ahsrutha Rai, The Jadhav Case and the Legal Effect of Non-Registration of Treaties, EJIL Talk (19 June 2017) <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-jadhav-case-and-the-legal-effect-of-non-registration-of-treaties/>.

  65. The author believes that Pakistan will not be able to succeed in this argument on the basis of the general rules of treaty interpretation and the situation in this case demonstrates the importance of consular assistance in this type of matter.

  66. For an elaboration on these points, see P.S. Rao, The Jadhav Case (2017): India and Pakistan before the International Court of Justice, 56 Indian J Intl L (2016) 379–403.

  67. International Committee of Jurists, Military Injustice in Pakistan: A Briefing Paper (June 2016) <https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pakistan-Military-court-Advocacy-Analysis-brief-2016-ENG.pdf>.

  68. Devadatt Kamam, Kulbhushan’s Trial by Pak Military Courts Deeply Flawed, DNA Delhi (July 12, 2017) <https://www.pressreader.com/india/dnadelhi/20170712/282016147365891>.

  69. Ibid 71 [6].

  70. Ibid 71 [6.2].

  71. Ibid 71 [7.2.7].

  72. Ibid.

  73. Ibid 71 [7.2.4].

  74. Ibid 71 [7.2.3].

  75. Ibid 71 [7.2.3].

  76. Pakistan Military Appellate Court Rejects Kulbhushan Jadhav's Plea against His Death Sentence, The New Indian Express (16 July 2017).

  77. Ibid 57, 8.

  78. Ibid 57 [2(2)].

  79. Ibid 71 [2(3)].

  80. Ibid 71 [2(4)].

  81. Ibid 1, 15.

  82. Ibid 1, 16.

  83. Ibid.

  84. Ibid.

  85. Ibid.

  86. Ibid.

  87. Ibid 57 [41].

  88. Ibid [42].

  89. Ibid 57 [86].

  90. Ibid 57 [95].

  91. Ibid 57 [91].

  92. Ibid 57 [95].

  93. Ibid 57 [93].

  94. Ibid 57 [93(a)].

  95. Ibid 57 [93(b)].

  96. Ibid 57 [93(c)].

  97. Ibid 57 [93(d)].

  98. Ibid 57 [93(e)].

  99. Antoine Buyse, Lost and Regained? Restitution as a Remedy for Human Rights Violations in the Context of International Law, 68 Heidelberg J Intl L (2008) 129.

  100. Ibid.

  101. Ibid 22 [122].

  102. John B Quigley, Vienna Convention On Consular Relations: In Retrospect and into The Future, 38 Southern Illinois Univ L J (2013) 1.

  103. Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 17, [13 September 1928] pp. 47–48.

  104. Ibid 103.

  105. The ICJ seems reluctant to refer to the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission for determining state responsibility and remedies. Therefore there is still no judicial authority as to the juridical status and weight of those Articles in terms of remedies.

  106. Ibid 103.

  107. Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów, Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 17, [September 13, 1928] [48].

  108. Ibid 7 [41].

  109. JJ Quintana, Litigation at the International Court of Justice Practice and Procedure (Brill-Nijhoff, The Hague, 2015) 1156/1157.

  110. Ibid 7, 41 [4.1].

  111. Ibid.

  112. Ibid 7, 43.

  113. Ibid 7, 42.

  114. Ibid 7.

  115. Ibid 7, 41.

  116. Ibid 106, 9.

  117. Anne Peters, Beyond Human Rights—The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2016) 356 [11].

  118. Joan Fitzpatrick, The Unreality of International Law in the United States and the LaGrand Case, 27(2) Yale Intl L J (2002) 427.

  119. Ibid.

  120. Nationals Charged with Criminal Offences, in, Luke T Lee & John B Quigley (eds) Consular Law and Practice, 3rd edn (OUP, Oxford, 2015) [12].

  121. Ibid 11 [141(2)].

  122. Ibid 41.

  123. Peters supra note 118, citing The Prosecutor v Juvénal Kajelijeli (AC) (23 May 2005) [221].

  124. Monica Feria Tinta, Due Process and the Right to Life in the Context of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: Arguing the LaGrand Case, 12(2) Euro J Intl L (2001) 363, 365.

  125. Ibid 125 [167].

  126. Ibid 125, 170 [12].

  127. Ibid 7, 48.

  128. Ibid.

  129. Christian Tomuschat, Reparation for Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations, 10 Tulane J Intl Comparative L 157, (2002) 168.

  130. Ibid note 134.

  131. ES Bates, Victims’ Rights to a Remedy and Reparation in Terrorism and International Law: Accountability, Remedies, and Reform (OUP, Oxford, 2011) [5.01].

  132. Ibid 122 [11.3].

  133. Ibid [11.6].

  134. Ibid.

  135. It is also noteworthy that Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade was the President of the I/A Court H.R. when it gave its advisory opinion in favour of a rights based approach to Art. 36 and he is now a member of the ICJ hearing the Jadhav Case. His is a supporter of the “humanisation of international law.”

  136. Rajesh Ahuja and Jayanth Jacob, Kulbhushan Jadhav Case: India, Pak Hold Many “Spies” in Each Other’s Custody, Hindustan Times (16 April 2017).

  137. Ibid 106.

  138. Ibid 7, 48.

  139. Ibid

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Barrister, Church Court Chambers, Middle Temple, London, UK

    Michael James Polak

Authors
  1. Michael James Polak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael James Polak.

Additional information

I thank Professor Andrew Lang and Leander Christiaanson for supervision and proofreading. I dedicate this article to Jerry Hadingham, late Dr. Omer Yousif Elagab, to my parents, Ian Polak and Sue Shaw, and Kyriaki Pouangare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Polak, M.J. The Jadhav case and the right to consular assistance: ‘confessions’, spies, and remedies in international law. Indian Journal of International Law 57, 385–409 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-018-0077-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-018-0077-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation