Indian spy Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav continues to provide crucial intelligence with regard to recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Foreign Office (FO) spokesperson Nafees Zakaria told DawnNews on Monday.
Jadhav’s death sentence was stayed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague on May 18, following proceedings in which Pakistani and Indian lawyers argued over the legitimacy of the death sentence awarded to Jadhav by a Pakistani military court.
Insisting that Pakistan held enough evidence to prove that Jadhav was a spy, Attorney General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf during an exclusive interview to DawnNews said that Pakistan has information on Jadhav that could not be disclosed due to the security reasons.
He said, “The evidence would only be presented before the ICJ once it resumes the hearing.”
He said the ICJ’s procedural order of May 18 was neither Pakistan’s defeat nor India’s success and emphasised that when the case re-starts, “Pakistan would be on solid ground to win”.
Explore: ‘Pakistan made a mistake’: Criticism at home over ICJ decision
Responding to a question regarding the constitution of a new legal team, Ausaf said that there were no plans to change the team, however, he said it would be “expanded”.
When asked why he did not represent Pakistan at the May 15 hearing at the ICJ, Ausaf disclosed that he “knew prior to the judgement that the ICJ is going to announce the provisional order”.
Jadhav, who was tried by a Pakistani military court under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923, confessed before a magistrate and court that he was tasked by Indian spy agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), to plan, coordinate and organise espionage and sabotage activities seeking to destabilise and wage war against Pakistan by impeding the efforts of law enforcement agencies for the restoration of peace in Balochistan and Karachi, the ISPR had maintained.
A the ICJ, India blamed Pakistan for denying consular access to Jadhav while Pakistan insisted that was not eligible for consular access and that the ICJ does not have the adequate jurisdiction to give a judgment on the case.
Rejecting Pakistan’s argument that the court did not have jurisdiction in the matter, the court reasoned it could hear the case because it involved, on the face of it, an alleged violation of one of the clauses of the Vienna Convention, which both Pakistan and India ascribe to and whose interpretation falls under its purview.