The interpretation of the 2008 bilateral agreement is therefore important to resolve the problem. While the State of India considers the 2008 agreement irrelevant and Pakistan relies on a misinterpretation of the agreement to assert the accuracy of its action. The proper interpretation of the 2008 bilateral agreement would have prevented States from arguing over the unexplored areas of espionage and the status of military courts, which indirectly would jeopardize national security interests in various remarks. However, the India Counsels argued on the false premise of the Pakistani state as their own arguments occurred and eventually ended with assertions such as national security interests, they cannot be certified by the nations themselves. This is in direct contradiction to India`s position in various human rights for a, that it cannot allow politicized international organizations or international tribunals to decide national security issues. Moreover, when seriously raised by the International Court of Justice, these arguments will change the serenity of the jurisprudence of international law. While such a development in jurisprudence is desirable from a human rights perspective, it risks diplomatically exposing the sovereignty of the weakest state to a politicized international scene. Perhaps this could have been avoided by relying exclusively on positive legal documents such as the 1963 Vienna Convention and the 2008 bilateral agreement. The result of the judgment could not be different, but it would also have saved the principle of state sovereignty.
The lack of expertise of developing countries in international law was clearly highlighted throughout the hearing. Asked whether an ICJ ruling would open the door to a stronger third-party intervention, which has so far hated India, Luthra said: „The door has always been open. The scope of international treaties at the ICC does not create new access, but merely indicates an internationalization of human rights issues, which can go both ways. At a briefing on 27 April, Nafees Zakaria, spokesman for Pakistan`s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hinted at his government`s preference for the 2008 bilateral agreement. The agreement was reached after Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee met with his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and completed a review of the fourth round of the dialogue process between the two countries. The paragraphs of the 2008 bilateral agreement (i-iv) enhance these provisions of Article 36. You are not irrelevant as such. Paragraph (ii) obliges the host state to inform the State of origin without delay of the arrest of its nationals, whether the national requests it or not. This is a strengthening of the law covered in point (b) of section 36 of the OSC. Paragraph (iv) improves the position of Article 36, paragraph b, by adding to Article 36, point b), the terms „without delay“ of a „three-month ceiling“ during which consular access „must be granted.“ Paragraph (iii) again improves the provisions of the CSV by again requiring the host state to promptly inform the conviction of nationals of the State of origin.
Ideally, the Indian state could have used these provisions to find further violations of its rights by the State of Pakistan.