First, Article 73 of the CCGR refers to the provisions of the CSV as such and not directly to the rights it contains. This means that the absolute notion of the rights mentioned in the VCCR is imaginary and very broad in the textual meaning of Article 73. Article 36 of the RABC is also not primarily a human rights provision, although the dimensions of human rights are easily linked to it. It deals with the procedural aspect of the „exercise of consular functions” and intends to facilitate the smooth exercise of consular functions. In such a context, the 2008 agreement is useful and relevant. It describes with determination the procedure to be followed by the Governments of India and Pakistan in cases concerning Article 36 of the CSV. INDIA AND Pakistan presented their first arguments on the Kulbhushan Jadhav case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday, but a bilateral consular access agreement between the two countries in 2008 could be the key to this complex legal case. Article 6 of the „Consular Access Agreement”, signed on 21 May 2008 in Islamabad by Pakistani High Commissioners Shahid Malik and Satyabrata Pal of India, provides that in the event of arrest, detention or conviction on political or security grounds, either party may consider the merits of the case. It is apparent from the Security Council notes that India has expressed the principle that has accepted the practical form given to it by the Security Council and that it has freely participated in the negotiations on the modalities thereof. However, when developments in Jammu-Kashmir made her doubt her chances of winning the referendum, she changed her position and argued that she was no longer bound by the agreement. Of course, she used a lot of arguments to justify the salto.
But if the arguments were of a legal or quasi-legal nature, she refused a reference to the World Court to rule on her case. In this way, the dispute was frozen, with disastrous consequences, especially for Kashmir, with a high cost for Pakistan and not too happy results for India itself. 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 provides 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 three-month delay, to the extreme detriment of the person concerned? On the basis of the decisions of the ICJ and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the matter, it is clear that rights belong to the individual and, therefore, can States now decide bilaterally that these rights can be delayed? Note that Judge Cançado Trindade`s separate opinion was based on his experience before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights when he was a judge before that court, which considered the same issues. . . .