UN panel on detention ‘rules in favour’ of Julian Assange

A United Nations panel has concluded that Julian Assange’s three and a half years in an Ecuadorian embassy amounts to ‘arbitrary detention’. Mr. Assange filed a complaint against Sweden and the UK in September 2014, which has been considered by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 

Mr Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, having been granted political asylum by the government of Ecuador. The WikiLeaks founder sought asylum to avoid extradition to Sweden to face questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations, which he denies. Last August Sweden dropped part of its investigation after the statute of limitations expired. It is still seeking to interview him on one outstanding allegation of rape.

Mr. Assange appealed to the panel on the basis that his stay in the embassy was arbitrary due to his being unable to exercise his right to asylum. He also argued UK law had changed since 2012, which meant that if arrested today Mr. Assange would no longer be liable to extradition under a European arrest warrant.

The panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement and offer him compensation. In particular, the working group considered that Mr. Assange had not been guaranteed a fair trial, in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The committee said one of its members, Leigh Toomey, had declined to take part in the inquiry because she, like Assange, is an Australian citizen. Another member, Vladimir Tochilovsky, a Ukrainian lawyer, disagreed with the finding, while a third considered the situation of Mr. Assange not one of detention, and therefore outside the mandate of the working group. Only three of the five-member panel therefore supported the finding against the UK and Sweden.

Much of the criticism in the panel’s report is directed at the methods adopted by Swedish prosecutors. The report finds such detention is, ipso facto, incompatible with the presumption of innocence. It implies that insisting on Assange’s extradition to Sweden, before any charges have been made, amounts to disproportionate pressure in a criminal investigation.

The panel’s findings were disclosed to the Swedish and British governments on 22 January, and published on 5 February.Christophe Peschoux, a senior official at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, argues the UN panel ruling is legally binding because of its basis in international human rights law.

However, British Prime Minister, David Cameron’s spokesman contended any decision by a United Nations panel would not be legally binding and should Mr. Assange leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London an arrest warrant will be effected. Anna Ekberg, spokesperson for the Swedish foreign ministry, said “The government does not agree with the assessment made by the majority of the working group.”

Regardless if the judgement is to be binding, it can be nonetheless be used to apply pressure on states in human rights cases. Should the governments choose to ignore the decision, it could make it difficult for them in future to bring pressure on other countries over human rights violations.

Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have also been the subject of a secret grand jury investigation in Virginia that has been looking into whether to prosecute them over the US cable disclosures. Mr. Assange has said he fears he could become immediately subject to a second extradition process even if Sweden drops its inquiry.

Share

Resources

Sustaining Partners