LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of

Maharashtra, Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal
No. 1899-900 of 2011

Full judgment available at:

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/39511.pdf

Annex 2 Mohd. Arif v Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others,

Supreme Court of India, Writ Petition (Crl). No. 77 of 2014

Full judgment available at:

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/ropor/rop/all/1178
68.pdf

Annex 3 Translated Transcript of CNN News 18 interview of Mama

Qadir, a Baloch Human Rights Activist (telecasted on 18
January 2018)

Annex 4 Report on the visit of the family members of Shri.

Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav to Pakistan on December 25,
2017

Annex 5 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan, on 8 December 2017

Annex 6 Note Verbale issued by India on 11 December 2017

Annex 7 Note Verbale issued by India on 13 December 2017

Annex 8 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 20 December 2017

Annex 9
Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 23 December 2017

Annex 10
Note Verbale issued by India on 24 December 2017

Annex 11
Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 24 December 2017

57
Annex 12 Note Verbale issued by India on 27 December 2017

Annex 13 Statement by the External Affairs Minister, Government

of India (EAM) in Rajya Sabha on the meeting of the
family of Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav with him and the
situation arising from there (28 December 2017)

Annex 14.1 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 19 January 2018

Annex 14.2 Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 19 January 2018

Annex 15.1 Note Verbale issued by India on 11 April 2018

Annex 15.2 Note Verbale issued by India on 11 April 2018

Annex 16 Robert Kolb, The International Court of Justice

(Hart Publishing, 2013), page 947

Annex 17 ‘China Said to Jail Ex-U.S. Attorney’, New York Times,

20 January 1984

Also available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/20/world/china-said-to-
jail-ex-us-attorney.html

Annex 18 Luke T. Lee. Vienna Convention on Consular Access

(A.W. Sijthoff-Leyden/Rule of Law Press – Durham
N.C., 1966), page 107-108

58
ANNEXES
 Annex 1

Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra, Supreme Court of

India, Criminal Appeal No. 1899-900 of 2011

Full judgment available at: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/judis/39511.pdf

 ANNEX 1

the judgment and order passed by the trial court in all material aspects: it sustained

the appellant’s conviction and confirmed the punishments given him by the trial

court, but at the same time it did not interfere with the acquittal of the other two

accused.

5. From the judgment of the High Court two appeals have come to this Court:

one is a jail appeal by Kasab and the other is by the State of Maharashtra. The

State’s appeal seeks to challenge the acquittal of the other two accused by the trial

court and affirmed by the High Court. The other two accused are impleaded in the

State’s appeal as Respondents No. 1 and 2. Kasab was unrepresented in the appeal

preferred by him from jail and this Court, therefore, appointed Mr. Raju

Ramachandran, senior advocate, assisted by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, to represent

him. He was thus able to get legal assistance of a standard and quality that is not

available to a majority of Indian nationals approaching this Court against their

conviction and sentence.

6. We may also state here that since it is a case of death sentence, we intend to

examine the materials on record first hand, in accordance with the time-

honoured practice of this Court, and come to our own conclusions on all issues

of facts and law, unbound by the findings of the trial court and the High Court.

4|Page

Page 4
 Annex 2

Mohd. Arif v Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others, Supreme Court of India,
Writ Petition (Crl). No. 77 of 2014

Full judgment available at:

http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jonew/ropor/rop/all/117868.pdf
 ANNEX 2

Sunder @ Sundarajan … Petitioner

Versus

State by Inspector of Police & Others … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.108 OF 2014

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon … Petitioner

Versus

Registrar,
Supreme Court of India & Others … Respondents

AND

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.117 OF 2014

Sonu Sardar … Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Others … Respondents

JUDGMENT

R.F. Nariman, J.

1. This group of petitions has come before the Constitution

Bench by a referral Order dated 28 th April, 2014. In each of

25
 ANNEX 2

them execution of the death sentence awarded to the

petitioners has been stayed. Two basic issues are raised by

counsel appearing for the petitioners, (1) the hearing of cases

in which death sentence has been awarded should be by a

Bench of at least three if not five Supreme Court Judges and

(2) the hearing of Review Petitions in death sentence cases

should not be by circulation but should only be in open Court,

and accordingly Order XL Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules,

1966 should be declared to be unconstitutional inasmuch as

persons on death row are denied an oral hearing.

2. Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Shri

K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate appearing in Writ Petition

(Crl.) No.137 of 2010 made a fervent plea that death sentence

cases are a distinct category of cases altogether. According to

the learned counsel, the award of the death penalty is a direct

deprivation of the right to life under Article 21. The right to

liberty under Article 21 is a facet of the core right to existence

itself, which, if deprived, renders all liberty meaningless. This

right is available as long as life lasts. [See: Sher Singh v. State

of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 345 at para 16; Shatrughan Chauhan

26
 Annex 3

Translated Transcript of CNN News 18 interview of Mama Qadir, a Baloch

Human Rights Activist (telecasted on 18 January 2018)
 ANNEX 3

Translated transcript of CNN News 18 interview of Mama Qadir, a Baloch Human Rights
activist
ftelecasted on 18 January 2018/

Question 1 (News 18): Welcome to you to CNN News 18. Firstly, please tell us what is your name
and what is the name of your organization or group?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): My name is Mama Qadir and my tanzeem's name is 'Voice for Baloch
Missing Persons' of which I am the Vice-chairman.

Question 2 (News 18): So you are a Baloch?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): Yes, I am a Baloch.

Question 3 (News 18): What do you work as, in Balochistan?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): We work for the missing Balochis, those who are kidnapped and killed
for raising voice for freedom. Pakistan's ISi, MI (Military Intelligence) and FC (Frontier Corps)
pick Balochis, they are taken to secret cells where they are tortured and murdered. Their bodies
are abandoned in valleys or on top of mountains. There are 28 districts in Balochistan and we have
coordinators working in each one of them who keeps track of missing and kidnapped Balochis.

Question 4 (News 18): So you are basically working for missing Balochis? Now tell me what
happened with Kulbhushan Jadhav?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): I remember very clearly about Kulbhushan Jadhav. Our coordinator
works in that area. Kulbhushan Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran, Chabahar by Mullah Omar, a
Balochi Irani. He works for ISi in Balochistan. ISi gave him crores of rupees and asked him to
kidnap and hand over Kulbhushan Jadhav to them. So he along with his men in a double door pick­
up van which we refer to as Vigo, abducted Jadhav. He was blind folded and his hands and legs
tied. He was kidnapped from Iran and brought to Mashkel. It is a district bordering Iran and
Pakistan, where they finally handed over Kulbhushan to ISi. News spread that a RAW agent was
caught and that Kulbhushan Jadhav was seen and working in Balochistan.

Question 5 (News 18): So there is no relation between Kulbhushan and Balochistan?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): Kulbhushan has never even come to Pakistan nor has he seen
Balochistan. He was kidnapped through Mullah Omar and brought in Mashkel.

Question 6 (News 18): Who is this Mullah Omar?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): He works for ISi. He kidnaps Balochis as well. He has murdered several
Balochis.

Question 7 (News 18): Does he do this for money?

 ANNEX 3

Answer (Qadir Baloch): Yes. The task of kidnapping Jadhav was given to him specifically and
he was promised a lot of money.

Question 8 (News 18): When did you get to know about this?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): The moment Jadhav was brought to Balochistan the news spread all
across that he was a RAW agent and has been caught by ISL When we inquired about his
whereabouts none in Balochistan were aware of any of his activities in Balochistan earlier. As and
when there is a missing Balochi either kidnapped or killed we maintain records on a daily basis.
Kulbhushan has never come to Balochistan nor has he crossed Iran. He was kidnapped by Mullah
Omar on behest of ISI and was handed over to ISL

Question 9 (News 18): Your group did a rescue attempt against Mullah Omar and his group?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): Yes, he absconded from Balochistan and now he lives in Karachi, Malir
and works for ISL Our people who are fighting in the hills have attacked him thrice; he has always
been saved even though his men have been killed.

Question 10 (News 18): How much money did ISI give this man to kidnap Jadhav?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): I have not seen by myself but I have heard it is around 4-5 crores of
rupees.

Question 11 (News 18): What happened after kidnapping?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): He was first brought to Mashkel and then taken to Quetta and then to
Islamabad.

Question 12 (News 18): So you have no doubts in the fact that Kulbhushan Jadhav was doing his
private business in Iran and was kidnapped from Iran and brought to Balochistan?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): I have no doubts. He has never crossed the border to Balochistan. Even
our coordinators have researched ifhe has been to Mashkel or Gwadar or Turbat earlier. There has
been no evidence.

Question 13 (News 18): Is it easy for a foreign national to enter Balochistan or are they instantly
recognized by authorities?

Answer (Qadir Baloch): Of course, even the local people when they visit the Dargah in Gwadar
they are checked for documents by the ISI and Frontier Corps check-posts. In such a case, how
can they miss a foreigner's presence?

Question 14 (News 18): So why does ISI say that he was caught in Balochistan?
ANNEX 3
 Annex 4

Report on the visit of the family members of Shri. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav to
Pakistan on December 25, 2017
ANNEX 4
ANNEX 4
ANNEX 4
ANNEX 4
ANNEX 4
ANNEX 4
ANNEX 4
 Annex 5

Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 8 December 2017

ANNEX 5
 Annex 6

Note Verbale issued by India on 11 December 2017

 ANNEX 6

fcrrhrr tr;TJ"r,­
MI IS R Nii f FA1
H

No. J/411/04/2017

The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of the Republic of

India presents its compliments to the High Commission of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan in New Delhi and has the honour to refer to the
Notes Verbale No. Ind (I)-5/20/2017 dated 30 August 2017 and 26
October 2017 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic
of Pakistan regarding request for assistance in so-called
'investigations' in the case of Indian national Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir
Jadhav.

In this context, the Ministry of External Affairs of India has the

honour to draw attention to the Note Verbale No. J-411/8/2016 dated
19 June 2017 issued by the Ministry and further convey that the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan's Note Verbale dated 31 May
2017 has already been replied to and does not merit any further
comment. The Notes Verbale dated 30 August 2017 and 26 October
2017 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan are yet another step
in the same direction of propaganda. The Government of Pakistan has
acted in brazen violation of its obligations under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Access 1963 and has violated the rights of
the Republic of India and of Mr. Jadhav.

The Government of India finds it ironical that the Government of

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in its Notes Verbale dated 30 August
.- 2017 and 26 October 2017 seeks to invoke the UN Security Council
Resolution 1373 (2001) which obliges States to afford measures to
deal with the menace of terrorism, a subject matter where Pakistan
has and continues to violate international and humanitarian laws.
India has on more than one occasion sought cooperation of Pakistan
in investigation of acts of terrorism including terrorist attacks in
Mumbai (2008) and on Air Force Base in Pathankot (2016) where clear
evidences of planning, support and launch of attacks into India from
1
ANNEX 6
ANNEX 6
ANNEX 6
 Annex 7

Note Verbale issued by India on 13 December 2017

ANNEX 7
 Annex 8

Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 20 December 2017

ANNEX 8
 Annex 9

Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 23 December 2017

ANNEX 9
ANNEX 9
 Annex 10

Note Verbale issued by India on 24 December 2017

ANNEX 10
ANNEX 10
 Annex 11

Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 24 December 2017

ANNEX 11
 Annex 12

Note Verbale issued by India on 27 December 2017

ANNEX 12
ANNEX 12
ANNEX 12
 Annex 13

Statement by the External Affairs Minister, Government of India (EAM) in Rajya

Sabha on the meeting of the family of Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav with him and the
situation arising from there (28 December 2017)
 ANNEX 13

STATEMENT BY EAM IN RAJYA SABHA ON THE MEETING OF

THE FAMILY OF Mr KULBHUSHAN JADHAV WITH HIM AND
THE SITUATION ARISING FROM THERE

28 December 2017

Hon’ble Chairman,

I rise to apprise the House of recent developments

pertaining to Shri Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national in the
illegal custody of Pakistan. As the House is aware, his mother
and wife met him on 25 December 2017 in Islamabad. The
meeting was arranged through diplomatic channels.

2. In April 2017, I had made a statement in this House

underlining the Government’s determination to do everything
possible to ensure Shri Jadhav’s well-being and secure his
release from illegal detention. Since then, the House is aware that
we approached the International Court of Justice and obtained
provisional measures that stayed the execution of the death
sentence that was passed on Shri Jadhav through a farcical
Pakistani military court process. While the imminent threat to
Shri Jadhav’s safety was averted as a result, we are now engaged
in seeking a permanent relief, based on stronger arguments,
through the legal avenue offered by the International Court of
Justice.

Hon’ble Chairman,

3. I had also conveyed that we were in constant touch with the

family at this difficult time. It was, therefore, natural that we took
up the cause of family members who sought access to Shri
Jadhav with a view to ascertaining his well-being for themselves.
These efforts were pursued persistently through diplomatic
channels. As a result, this month, the Pakistani authorities

1
 ANNEX 13

consented to a meeting between Shri Jadhav and his mother and

wife.

4. While the meeting could have been a step forward, it is a

matter of great concern that there was departure from the agreed
understandings between the two countries in the conduct of this
meeting. The emotional moment between a mother and her son,
and a wife and her husband after a period of 22 months, was
misused by Pakistan as an instrument to further its propaganda.
The Ministry of External Affairs has stated our position in this
regard publicly day before yesterday. Our concerns arising from
this meeting were conveyed to Pakistan through diplomatic
channels yesterday. I would like to highlight a few of them in this
House:

(i) There was a clear agreement that the media would not be
allowed close access to the mother and wife of Shri
Jadhav. However, not only the Pakistani press was
allowed to approach family members closely, but the
family members were also harassed through use of
offensive language by the media. The Pakistani media
hurled false and motivated accusations about Shri
Jadhav;

(ii) Under the pretext of security precautions, even the attire

of the family members was changed. Mr Jadhav’s
mother, who wears a Sari only, was instead given Salwar
and Kurta to wear. Bindi, bangles and mangal sutra of
the wife were removed;

(iii) The mother of Shri Jadhav wanted to talk to her son in

mother tongue Marathi, as this is clearly the natural
medium of communication between a mother and son.
However, the mother of Shri Jadhav was not allowed to

2
 ANNEX 13

speak in Marathi. While doing so, she was repeatedly

interrupted by the two Pakistani officials present in the
meeting. When she persisted, the intercom was closed
and she was prevented from proceeding further with the
conversation in Marathi;

(iv) The family members were taken for the meeting through
a separate door without informing the Deputy High
Commissioner of India, who had accompanied the family
members for this meeting. Consequently, he could not
see that the family members were being taken for the
meeting after changing their attire and removing their
bindi, bangles and mangal sutra. Otherwise he would
have objected then and there. The meeting was started
without his presence and he could join only after
pressing the matter with concerned officials;

(v) The car for the family of Mr Jadhav and accompanying

Indian diplomat was delayed after the meeting so as to
give another opportunity to the media to harass them;

(vi) The shoes of the wife of Shri Jadhav were removed before
the meeting and she was given slippers to wear to the
meeting. The shoes were not returned to her despite her
repeated requests after the meeting. The Pakistan
authorities have been cautioned against any mischievous
intent in this regard through a Note Verbale yesterday.

5. The mother and wife, after their return, conveyed to me that

Shri Kulbhushan Jadhav appeared under considerable stress
and was speaking in an atmosphere of coercion. As the meeting
evolved, it was clear to them that his remarks were tutored by his
captors and designed to perpetuate the false narrative of his

3
 ANNEX 13

alleged activities. His appearance also raised questions of his

health and well being.

Hon’ble Chairman,

6. The meeting of Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav with his mother

and wife was portrayed by Pakistan as a humanitarian gesture.
However, the truth is that both humanity and compassion were
missing during the meeting that was arranged on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds. There was a serious and gross
violation of human rights of the family members of Shri Jadhav
and an intimidating atmosphere was created for them during this
meeting. There are not enough words to condemn the same.

Hon’ble Chairman,

7. I am fully confident that this entire House and through this

House, the people of India, strongly condemns, in one voice, the
obnoxious behaviour of Pakistan and affirm their solidarity with
the Jadhav family.

*****

4
 Annex 14.1

Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 19 January 2018

ANNEX 14.1
ANNEX 14.1
ANNEX 14.1
 Annex 14.2

Note Verbale issued by Pakistan on 19 January 2018

ANNEX 14.2
ANNEX 14.2
I
I

ANNEX 14.2

(v). Is it India's contention that the use of a false identity per se or within a
"clearly forged" travel document/passport is not a criminal offence in
India?

( vi). What are the main evidential and factual reasons for India to contend
that the Passport is "clearly a forgery" as opposed to an authentic Indian
passport?

(C ) India considers that the lack of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between
India and Pakistan means that India does not have to assist Pakistan or
answer the legitimate questions posed by Pakistan in respect of
Commander Jadhav

India is invited to address in full detail why it considers that international law
and State practice supports its contentions in this regard.

( D) Commander Jadhav is not considered to have committed any crime for

which he is to be tried in India

Pakistan notes the statement made by India in this regard, notwithstanding

Commander Jadhav's possession and use of (according to India) a "clearly forgecf '
travel document.

Pakistan reiterates that it does not consider that the purported return of the
Request in any way excus13s the failure on the part of India to comply with its
international obligations. To facilitate India's compliance the Request is provided
agam.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan avails itself
of this opportunity to renew to the High Commission of India the assurances of its
highest consideration.

High Commission of the Republic of India,

Islamabad.

3
 Annex 15.1

Note Verbale issued by India on 11 April 2018

ANNEX 15.1
ANNEX 15.1
ANNEX 15.1
ANNEX 15.1
 Annex 15.2

Note Verbale issued by India on 11 April 2018

ANNEX 15.2
ANNEX 15.2
ANNEX 15.2
 Annex 16

Robert Kolb, The International Court of Justice (Hart Publishing, 2013), page 947
ANNEX 16
ANNEX 16
 Annex 17

'China Said to Jail Ex-U.S. Attorney’, New York Times, 20 January 1984

Also available at:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/20/world/china-said-to-jail-ex-us-attorney.html
 ANNEX 17

https://nyti.ms/29DyrdQ

ARCHIVES | 1984

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

Two years ago, Hanson Huang, a Hong Kong-born, Harvard-trained lawyer and a
former partner in a major New York law firm, disappeared from his hotel room while
on an extended visit to Peking.
Mr. Huang, who had earlier taught law in China, was assumed to be under
arrest. But until recently, nothing was known of his fate, either by relatives in Hong
Kong and the United States or by friends who knew him at Harvard.
Inquiries made by these friends by mail to the Chinese authorities went
unanswered. Members of Mr. Huang's family, hoping that by remaining quiet they
might enhance his chances of being released, did not seek publicity for him or
petition the Chinese Government for information about him.
Last month, a Chinese-language magazine in Hong Kong, Pai Shing, published
an article saying that Mr. Huang had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for spying
for the United States. There has been no official announcement of this, but a recent
visitor to Peking, a Westerner, said Mr. Huang's conviction as a spy had been
confirmed to him by Chinese officials. Others Have Disappeared
Other Hong Kong Chinese have disappeared in China for periods of a few days
to many months, with the assumption that they had been arrested. Last year, for
example, Lo Chengxun, editor of The New Evening Post, a pro- Communist Hong
Kong paper, was arrested while on a trip to China. After several months during
which no information about him was released, the editor, who was known in Hong
Kong as Lo Fu, was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of having spied for the
Central Intelligence Agency.
In Mr. Huang's case, very little is known other than the fact of his disappearance in
China.
 ANNEX 17

Mr. Huang attended both Harvard College and the Harvard Law School, where,
according to Robert McCabe, a lawyer in New York who knew him then, he had a
reputation as a firm supporter of the Communist revolution in China. After working
for the firm Baker and McKenzie in Chicago and New York, he went to Peking and
taught law at Peking University, friends and relatives say. He was also thought to
have worked as a consultant to foreign companies wanting to invest in China.
Returned to U.S in '81
Mr. Huang returned to the United States in 1981 and, for a brief period, was a
partner at Webster & Sheffield, the firm with offices at Rockefeller Center. William
H. Hogeland, managing partner, said the firm was interested in expanding its Asia
operations.
''He was very eager and hopeful about getting something going there,'' Mr.
Hogeland said of Mr. Huang. After going to China to prepare for work there for
Webster & Sheffield, Mr. Huang abruptly withdrew from the firm, saying he had
cancer and would seek treatment in Peking. Two months later, in January 1982, he
disappeared.
American lawyers who travel to China said they had asked informally about Mr.
Huang but received no information. Mr. Hogeland said his latest information in the
case was the article that appeared last month in Hong Kong. ''I don't know if the
article is correct,'' Mr. Hogeland said, adding that the firm first heard of Mr. Huang's
disappearance in the fall of 1982. ''It was a complete shock to me,'' he added.
Mr. Hogeland said the firm contacted the State Department after learning of Mr.
Huang's disappearance. Asked about the matter, State Department officials said
that, because Mr. Huang was not an American, no inquiries had been made on his
case.
Asked why the Government had taken no official action even after reports
appeared that Mr. Huang had been spying for the United States, the officials said the
reports were not official and therefore no diplomatic initiative was appropriate.
According to Chinese law and practice, residents of Hong Kong, such as Mr.
Huang, are considered Chinese citizens and are under the jurisdiction of the Chinese
authorities.
The TimesMachine archive viewer is a subscriber-only feature.

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback,
error reports, and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.
 ANNEX 17

A version of this article appears in print on January 20, 1984, on Page A00006 of the National edition with
the headline: CHINA SAID TO JAIL EX-U.S. ATTORNEY.

© 2018 The New York Times Company

 Annex 18

Luke T. Lee, Vienna Convention on Consular Access (A.W. Sijtff-

Leyden/Rule of Law Press - Durham N.C., 1966), pages 107-108
ANNEX 18
ANNEX 18
ANNEX 18