Pakistan’s counsel Khawar Qureshi and Attorney-General Anwar Mansoor Khan concluded the Kulbhushan Jadhav hearings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Thursday, by calling for India’s claim for relief to be dismissed or declared inadmissible, on the basis of the appeal options being available to him in Pakistan. The two cited an FIR that had been filed at a civilian court in Pakistan.

“India seeks relief which they cannot receive from the court,” insisted Mr. Khan.

The legal team also launched a wider attack on India, invoking the Kathua rape case, the Samjhauta Express bombing, the Gujarat riots and the use of pellet guns in Kashmir as instances of failures of India’s judicial system and human rights record. Mr. Qureshi began with a personal attack on India and a number of its senior figures, including National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and India’s counsel Harish Salve, accusing New Delhi of inhabiting a “wonderland” in “desperation and total disregard for the truth”.

Revision system

“Pakistan has a very robust revision and reconsideration system,” Mr. Khan told the court. In Pakistan — as is the case in other countries — military court proceedings are sometimes subject to state security considerations and therefore secrecy is maintained, he said.

“We want cooperation with India, we want peaceful coexistence with India but that will not [happen] until India stops sending serving officers across the border for espionage and sabotage,” Foreign Office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said following the hearing.

“India’s position is that of wonderland. Indeed it is of a rotund character with a fragile cranium. Pakistan is not the one who brought him into this court,” Mr. Qureshi said, in an apparent reference to Mr. Salve, who had on Wednesday slammed the language and tone of Mr. Qureshi’s opening arguments.

Judgments by the ICJ are made on an average within six months of the hearings concluding, though this can vary from a shorter period to a couple of years.

Decision is binding

The decision of the court is binding, and non-appealable, though it is possible to make a request for interpretation if there is a dispute between the two sides as to what the judgment means or what its scope is.

There is also a possibility to request a review of the judgment if a “matter comes to light” that the court was previously unaware of and which could be a “decisive factor”.

While requests for interpretation have on occasion been accepted, no requests for review have been successful to date.