In a recent online lecture he gave India's legal counsel for Kulbhushan Jadhav, a RAW operative caught red-handed in Balochistan, has levelled unsubstantiated allegations against this country claiming that Pakistan was not implementing the judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and that his side may decide to go back to the ICJ. The Foreign Office spokesperson issued a statement on Sunday regretting that the counsel, Harish Salve, has chosen to make statements "which are inaccurate and misrepresent facts." Pakistan, averred the spokesperson, has fully complied with the judgement and remains committed to continue doing so as the case proceeds further.

It may be recalled that in its verdict delivered last July, the ICJ had rejected India's plea that Jadhav, an Indian naval commander under death sentence on charges of espionage and terrorism, be acquitted and returned to his country declaring that "it is not the conviction and sentence of Jadhav, which are regarded to be in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Conventions." The court also recognised that that convict had travelled to Pakistan on an authentic Indian passport using a fictitious Muslim name, Hussain Mubarak Patel, which lent validity to his confessional statement that he was working for the Indian intelligence agency, RAW, to carry out acts of terrorism. However, without commenting on the charges against the convict, the court overruled Pakistan's contention that the Vienna Conventions do not apply to spies and those involved in sabotage, asking it to grant India's request for consular access to its man. Pakistan has not only given consular access to Jadhav in compliance with the court verdict but also allowed his family to meet him. As for the legality of the case, the court had noted that "Pakistan acknowledges that the appropriate remedy in the present case would be effective review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence." Islamabad has reiterated its pledge to fulfil its international obligations, saying measures are under way for effective review and reconsideration of the case as per the guidelines provided by the ICJ in its judgement.

It, in fact, is in this country's own interest to expose New Delhi's policy of destabilising this country by sponsoring terrorism. Although the ICJ has not questioned the RAW operative's conviction by a military court under the Army Act - in a procedure similarly prevalent in India - it is a great opportunity to unmask India's real face before the world through a transparent legal process. The case should be presented before a civilian court for review and international observers invited to decide for themselves what a serving officer of the Indian navy was doing in Balochistan using a fictitious name.