Following the discussions between India and Pakistan at the Ministry of the Interior on 25 and 26 November 2008 in Islamabad, a joint statement was made. The full text of the statement is presented below: first, Section 73 of the VCCR refers to the provisions of the VCCR as such and not directly to the rights it contains. This means that the absolute notion of rights cited in the VCCR is imaginary and very broad in the textual meaning of section 73. Article 36 VCCR is also not, in the first place, a human rights provision, although the dimensions of human rights are easily due to it. It deals with the procedural aspect of “the exercise of consular duties” and intends to “facilitate the performance of these functions.” In this context, the 2008 agreement is useful and relevant. It is a firm description of the procedure to be followed by the governments of India and Pakistan in cases concerning Article 36 of the CSV. On 21 February 2019, the International Court of Justice ended the hearing of India and Pakistan`s arguments on the Jadhav case and the cases are reserved for deliberations. In 2017, India filed a lawsuit against Pakistan seeking consular access to Mr. Jadhav (allegedly an Indian spy from Pakistan) convicted of espionage. The case stems from an application by India under Article 40, paragraph 1, the statute of the Court of Justice and Article 38 of the Internal Regulation, which was read in Vienna on 24 April 1963, along with Article 1 of the optional Protocol on Mandatory Dispute Settlement (optional Protocol). was prepared to authorize consular access to a commitment by the State of India to cooperate with Pakistan in a mutual investigation into alleged crimes committed by Jadhav on the territory of Pakistan, and his possession of an Indian passport with false certifications.

The State of Pakistan states that its view is legally correct, in accordance with point vi of the 2008 Indo-Pak bilateral agreement on consular access. However, the second argument, which is raised only by India, is that the 2008 agreement is, in any event, inherently inoperable for two distinct reasons: if interpreted as Pakistan claims, the bilateral agreement differs from the effective implementation of the purpose and objective of the former multilateral VCCR, invalidating it under Article 41 (read by 42) of the VCLT; It is not registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations and therefore cannot be referred to the International Court of Justice. If these are regarded as international human rights and not just as state rights under the OAS, is the sending state obliged to provide full consular services to its national upon their arrest under Article 36? If it is a right of states under international contract law, they would have the right, but not the obligation to provide consular services to their nationals. Now that the issue is clearly in the area of international human rights, the sending state is now certainly responsible for providing comprehensive consular services, including the mediation of an appropriate lawyer for the accused at the expense of the State of origin, regular pastoral visits by consular officials and the provision of basic livelihoods inside during incarceration.