“We have repeatedly made it clear that Pakistan and India signed a consular access agreement in 2008, in accordance with Article 6 of this agreement… In cases where arrests and arrests are political or security matters, the request for consular access to the merits is decided. That remains our consistent position,” he said. 5. Both sides welcomed the release of prisoners and fishermen on the eve of these talks as a gesture of goodwill and for human reasons. It was agreed to exchange, by 31 December 2008, the names of the points to impose full sentences and whose national status was confirmed in order to facilitate their release in January. It was also agreed that the verification of the status of nationality would now be completed within six weeks of the availability of consular access. It was also agreed to facilitate the rapid release of fishermen and boats. Pakistan is involved in a case that India has referred to the ICJ on the same issue – the violation of Article 36 – concerning the inability to provide consular services to Mr. Jadhav and Indian nationals arrested and brought to justice by a Pakistani military court. The case presented by India is set out in the Tribunal`s press release. 9.
Both parties agreed that the issue of involuntary transverses should be considered on a humanitarian basis and recommended that the draft agreement on unintentional crossings by the expert group on conventional CMMs be soon finalised. The paragraphs of the 2008 bilateral agreement (i-iv) enhance these provisions of Article 36. You are not irrelevant as such. Paragraph (ii) obliges the host state to inform the State of origin without delay of the arrest of its nationals, whether the national requests it or not. This is a strengthening of the law covered in point (b) of section 36 of the OSC. Paragraph (iv) improves the position of Article 36, paragraph b, by adding to Article 36, point b), the terms “without delay” of a “three-month ceiling” during which consular access “must be granted.” Paragraph (iii) again improves the provisions of the CSV by again requiring the host state to promptly inform the conviction of nationals of the State of origin. Ideally, the Indian state could have used these provisions to find further violations of its rights by the State of Pakistan. Although the State of Pakistan has violated almost all of these provisions in this case, India relies exclusively on the Vienna Convention (Application Instituteing Proceedings, Para 46). The reasons behind the State of India to avoid such a linear legal strategy and to choose the language of human rights are something interesting that needs to be studied. It is likely to be a matter of seeking corrective measures that go beyond the “review” or “review” of the case in the Pakistani courts. 1.
On 21 May 2008, India and Pakistan concluded a bilateral agreement on consular relations, focusing on the issue of consular services. Paragraph iv of the agreement stipulates that consular access must be granted within three months. If it is a human rights issue, can India and Pakistan decide that there can be a delay of three months, to the extreme prejudice of the person concerned? On the basis of the decisions of the Igh and the cases of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in this case, it is clear that the rights belong to the individual and, therefore, can States now decide bilaterally that these rights may be delayed? Note that Judge Canaado Trindade`s separate opinion was based on his experience before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights when he was a judge in the same court.