<p>India on Wednesday accused Pakistan of coercing former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav to forego his right to file a petition to the High Court in the neighbouring country seeking review of the death sentence awarded to him in April 2017. </p>.<p>New Delhi vowed to do whatever it could to protect Kulbhushan Jadhav and to ensure his safe return to India from Pakistan. It also accused the Pakistan Government of creating a mirage of compliance with the judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which had on July 17, 2019 held that the death sentence awarded to Jadhav by a military court of Pakistan in April 2017 should remain suspended till the review of the conviction. </p>.<p>The Government would “do its utmost to protect” him (Jadhav) and ensure his safe return to India, Anurag Srivastava, the spokesperson of the <a href="https://www.mea.gov.in/response-to-queries.htm?dtl/32815/Official_Spokespersons_response_to_a_query_from_the_media_in_the_case_of_Shri_Kulbushan_Sudhir_Jadhav">Ministry of External Affairs</a> (MEA), said in New Delhi. “To that end,” he added, “it would consider all appropriate options.”</p>.<p>New Delhi strongly reacted to Pakistan Government’s claim earlier on the day that Jadhav had refused to file an appeal in the Islamabad High Court against the death sentence awarded to him by a military tribunal. Jadhav exercised his legal right and refused to file a petition for the review and reconsideration of his sentence and conviction,” Ahmed Irfan, Additional Attorney General of Pakistan, said during a news-conference in the capital of the neighbouring country. Jadhav instead preferred to follow up on his pending mercy petition to the Government of Pakistan, said Irfan.</p>.<p>Pakistan on May 20 promulgated an ordinance called the “International Court of Justice Review and Reconsideration Ordinance 2020”, which mandated that a petition for review and reconsideration of conviction by military tribunal could be made to Islamabad High Court through an application within 60 days from the day it was brought into force. The petition could be filed by Jadhav, himself, a legally authorised representative of him or a consular officer of the High Commission of India in Islamabad.</p>.<p>Srivastava dismissed Pakistan Government’s claim that Jadhav had refused to initiate review petition. It is “a continuation of the farce that has been in play for the last four years”. Jadhav has been sentenced to execution through a farcical trial. He remains under custody of the Pakistan Army. “He has clearly been coerced to refuse to file a review in his case,” said the MEA spokesperson. </p>.<p>“India sought unimpeded access to him to discuss his remedies under the Ordinance. In a brazen attempt to scuttle even the inadequate remedy under the Ordinance, Pakistan has obviously coerced him to forego his rights to seek an implementation of the judgment of the ICJ,” said Srivastava. “The media statement made by the Pakistan Government today in the case seeks to mask its continuing reticence to implement ICJ judgment in letter and spirit.”</p>
<p>India on Wednesday accused Pakistan of coercing former Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav to forego his right to file a petition to the High Court in the neighbouring country seeking review of the death sentence awarded to him in April 2017. </p>.<p>New Delhi vowed to do whatever it could to protect Kulbhushan Jadhav and to ensure his safe return to India from Pakistan. It also accused the Pakistan Government of creating a mirage of compliance with the judgement of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which had on July 17, 2019 held that the death sentence awarded to Jadhav by a military court of Pakistan in April 2017 should remain suspended till the review of the conviction. </p>.<p>The Government would “do its utmost to protect” him (Jadhav) and ensure his safe return to India, Anurag Srivastava, the spokesperson of the <a href="https://www.mea.gov.in/response-to-queries.htm?dtl/32815/Official_Spokespersons_response_to_a_query_from_the_media_in_the_case_of_Shri_Kulbushan_Sudhir_Jadhav">Ministry of External Affairs</a> (MEA), said in New Delhi. “To that end,” he added, “it would consider all appropriate options.”</p>.<p>New Delhi strongly reacted to Pakistan Government’s claim earlier on the day that Jadhav had refused to file an appeal in the Islamabad High Court against the death sentence awarded to him by a military tribunal. Jadhav exercised his legal right and refused to file a petition for the review and reconsideration of his sentence and conviction,” Ahmed Irfan, Additional Attorney General of Pakistan, said during a news-conference in the capital of the neighbouring country. Jadhav instead preferred to follow up on his pending mercy petition to the Government of Pakistan, said Irfan.</p>.<p>Pakistan on May 20 promulgated an ordinance called the “International Court of Justice Review and Reconsideration Ordinance 2020”, which mandated that a petition for review and reconsideration of conviction by military tribunal could be made to Islamabad High Court through an application within 60 days from the day it was brought into force. The petition could be filed by Jadhav, himself, a legally authorised representative of him or a consular officer of the High Commission of India in Islamabad.</p>.<p>Srivastava dismissed Pakistan Government’s claim that Jadhav had refused to initiate review petition. It is “a continuation of the farce that has been in play for the last four years”. Jadhav has been sentenced to execution through a farcical trial. He remains under custody of the Pakistan Army. “He has clearly been coerced to refuse to file a review in his case,” said the MEA spokesperson. </p>.<p>“India sought unimpeded access to him to discuss his remedies under the Ordinance. In a brazen attempt to scuttle even the inadequate remedy under the Ordinance, Pakistan has obviously coerced him to forego his rights to seek an implementation of the judgment of the ICJ,” said Srivastava. “The media statement made by the Pakistan Government today in the case seeks to mask its continuing reticence to implement ICJ judgment in letter and spirit.”</p>
