Julian Assange - UN Rules in His Favour?

[David Guyatt]

It seems as though the UN is going to rule in favour of Julian Assange and decide he has been unlawfully held, which will be very embarrassing for Blighty. However, the UN decline to confirm or deny this leak and are sticking to their tomorrow's timetable to announce the decision of their Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

But early this morning Assange stated that on Friday, he will leave the London Ecuadorian Embassy where he has been granted political sanctuary even if the UN panel votes against him. Meanwhile, London's Metropolitan Police have today stated that nothing has changed and that Assange will be arrested if he leaves.

I'm looking forward to Friday. Will Blighty arrest him? Will Sweden go through with the trumped up charges and call for his transfer to Sweden to stand trial? And if he is extradited to Sweden, will they, in turn, extradite him to the US for the planned show trial and imprisonment?

Watch this space...

[Magda Hassan]

Definitely watching this space!

[Magda Hassan]

That was quick. Now for the reaction.

Julian Assange being arbitrarily held - UN legal panel

• 16 minutes ago
  
  
• From the section UK
  

Image copyright AFP A UN panel has ruled Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being "arbitrarily detained", the BBC understands.
Mr Assange claimed asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex assault claims, which he denies.
The Met Police said he will still be held if he does leave the embassy.
He earlier tweeted he would accept arrest if the panel ruled against him, but called for his arrest warrant to be dropped if the decision went his way.
Who is Julian Assange?
Timeline of the Julian Assange case
Julian Assange and the law
In 2014, Mr Assange complained to the UN that he was being "arbitrarily detained" as he could not leave the embassy without being arrested.
The UN's Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is due to announce the findings of its investigation on Friday.
While the BBC understands the panel will find in Mr Assange's favour, Wikileaks tweeted it was waiting for "official confirmation".
The UK government said it would not "pre-empt" the ruling, saying Mr Assange still faced one allegation of rape while a European Arrest Warrant remained in place.
"We have been consistently clear that Mr Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean embassy," a spokesman added.
"The UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr Assange to Sweden."

---

Analysis

Image copyright Getty Images By Caroline Hawley, BBC diplomatic correspondent
There has been no official comment from either Sweden, Britain or the UN on the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention decision, which was taken in December and shared with both the Swedish and British governments.
In his complaint to the panel - made in 2014 - Julian Assange argued that living in 30 square metres of the Ecuadorian Embassy with no sunlight or fresh air had taken a "significant toll" on his physical and mental health.
Previous rulings by the panel have gone against countries with some of the world's worst human rights records, such as Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Egypt.
So a decision against Sweden and Britain in favour of Mr Assange is bound to be controversial.
But it doesn't mean that he'll walk free. It's not legally binding. And British officials have made clear that the European arrest warrant against him remains in place.

---

The panel's decision is not legally binding on the UK or Sweden, Clive Coleman, BBC legal affairs correspondent said.
Mr Assange will argue the decision is significant and adds considerable legal and moral force to the argument he is being arbitrarily detained, he said.
But our correspondent added the UK government is likely to argue that Mr Assange's detention follows "an entirely lawful process".
Australian Mr Assange was originally arrested in London in 2010 under a European Arrest Warrant issued by Sweden.
He claimed asylum inside the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge after the UK Supreme Court ruled the extradition against him could go ahead.
Swedish prosecutors dropped two sex assault claims against Mr Assange last year. However, he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.
Image caption Mr Assange issued his statement on Twitter His Wikileaks organisation posted secret American government documents on the internet, and Mr Assange says he believes Washington will seek his transfer to the US if he is sent to Sweden.
In the statement, published earlier by Wikileaks on Twitter, Mr Assange said: "Should the UN announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal.
"However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me."
Last October, Scotland Yard said it would no longer station officers outside the Ecuador embassy following an operation which it said had cost £12.6m. But it said "a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him" would still be deployed.

---

Julian Assange: Key dates

• August 2010 - Swedish prosecutors issue an arrest warrant for Mr Assange
  
• May 2012 - UK Supreme Court rules he should be extradited to Sweden to face questioning
  
• June 2012 - Mr Assange claims asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London
  
• September 2014 - Mr Assange submits complaint against Sweden and the UK to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
  
• August 2015 - Swedish prosecutors drop their investigation into two allegations - one of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion - but say he still faces the more serious accusation of rape.
  
• October 2015 - Met Police announce officers will no longer be stationed outside the Ecuadorean embassy
  

[Magda Hassan]

Apparently both UK and Sweden were told the panel results in December last year. And there have been crickets.....

[Peter Lemkin]

Sweden and the UK are bound by this decision according to International Law, but are NOT bound by it according to their own domestic laws....so, this will be a real mess legally, but I sense the UK, being a prime law-breaking nation especially when it comes to International Law will arrest Assange if he leaves even if the UN panel's decision is in his favor......but who knows. I think the BBC is 'floating' the fact that the Panel has decided in Assange's favor to test the waters of public opinion and perhaps those of the ruling elites and Parliament.

Stay tuned, any way, Friday will be a very important day for Assange, Free Speech, the rule of Law, International Law and many other Freedoms.

[Peter Lemkin]

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The BBC is reporting that the United Nations panel investigating the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has ruled he has been, quote, "arbitrarily detained." The U.N. says it will not confirm the report until Friday at 11:00 a.m. Geneva time. Assange first complained to the U.N. in 2014 that he was being arbitrarily detained since he could not leave the Ecuadorean Embassy in London without being arrested. Assange took refuge in the embassy in 2012. Assange wants to avoid extradition to Sweden over sex assault claims, which he has repeatedly denied. He says he fears Sweden will extradite him to the United States, where he could face trial for publishing classified information.
AMY GOODMAN: Julian Assange had called for his arrest warrant to be dropped if the panel ruled in his favor. Earlier on Twitter, he announced, quote, "I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal. However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me," he said. Police say a warrant for Assange's arrest remains in place. The BBC reports the panel's ruling will not have any formal influence over the British and Swedish authorities.
For more, we go directly to London. We're joined by Jennifer Robinson, legal adviser to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, also director of legal advocacy for the Bertha Foundation.
Jen, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you explain what you understand the U.N. panel has found and what that means for your client, Julian Assange?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Good morning, Amy. We have received reports from the BBC that the U.N. has found in favor of Julian's application, which would mean that he has been found arbitrarily detained. We have not yet received formal confirmation of this. We expect to receive the decision at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, and I'll be with Julian in the embassy to understand the implications of that decision. So, at this point we're unable to give comment until then. But we understand, as the reports have said, that this is what we expected. We expected and hoped this outcome.
The conditions of his detention over the past five years have been incredibly difficult. He meets the international legal definition of being arbitrarily detained, because he's been granted the right to asylum by the Ecuadorean government in recognition of the risk of cruel and unusual punishment should he be returned to the United States. And that is an important international legal right. Should he have to leave the embassy, the U.K. and Sweden have refused, which is in breach of international law, to recognize that right to asylum, which means that he is arbitrarily detained.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Jennifer Robinson, what do you make of the fact that this news was released by the BBC?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The procedure for the U.N. working group is that the states in question who the complaint is aboutin this case, the U.K. and Swedenreceive two weeks' notification before we do, as the complainants, of the decision, in order to consider the decision and correct any inconsistencies if there were any problems with that decision. So they've had advance notice that we have not had. It seems to me that it must have been leaked by one of thoseone of the states involved or sources within one of those governments, because we don't have the decision yet.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask about the British government's response to the BBC report. Speaking earlier today, a British government spokesperson said, quote, "We have been consistently clear that Mr. Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the U.K. but is, in fact, voluntarily avoiding lawful arrest by choosing to remain in the Ecuadorean Embassy. An allegation of rape is still outstanding and a European Arrest Warrant in place, so the U.K. continues to have a legal obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden," they said. Your response to this, Jennifer Robinson?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Well, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is a body of eminent international law experts, who are chargedwhich was created by the U.N. Human Rights Commission to consider the international legal obligations of states, like the United Kingdom and Sweden, in reference to potential detainees. If the U.N. working group comes down and finds that this detention is arbitrary and unlawful, this clarifies for the United Kingdom and Sweden their obligations with respect to Mr. Assange's case. If this is inconsistent with the way in which the United Kingdom has been acting, they will be found in breach of their international obligations and have an obligation to implement this report. So we hope and expect that if this decision is in Julian's favor, that the U.K. and Sweden will take immediate action to implement the recommendations in the decision of this eminent working group within the U.N.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: But, Jennifer Robinson, the decision by the U.N., if it is, in fact, in favor of Julian Assange, is not legally binding. Is that correct?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: The U.K. and Sweden are both parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ought to welcome this decision from an eminent U.N. panel on the content and the method of implementation with respect to Julian Assange's case. They are bound to implement that decision as a matter of international law, but it doesn't haveit doesn't have enforcement value within the U.K. domestic legal system.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Julian Assange tweeted out, quote, "I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal. However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me." This is our last question, Jennifer Robinson: What will happen tomorrow?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: We will be hosting a press conference around noon tomorrow to discuss the implementationthe implications of the decision. It will be awe have already written to the Australian government, and we'll be seeking conversations with them about requesting the immediate return of Julian's passport or, in fact, the immediate issue of a new passport, so that histhe implementation of this decision, if in his favor, can becan take place immediately. We hope and expect that if this is in our favor, the U.K. and Sweden will act accordingly.

[David Guyatt]

Sweden and the UK are bound by this decision according to International Law, but are NOT bound by it according to their own domestic laws....so, this will be a real mess legally, but I sense the UK, being a prime law-breaking nation especially when it comes to International Law will arrest Assange if he leaves even if the UN panel's decision is in his favor......but who knows. I think the BBC is 'floating' the fact that the Panel has decided in Assange's favor to test the waters of public opinion and perhaps those of the ruling elites and Parliament.

Stay tuned, any way, Friday will be a very important day for Assange, Free Speech, the rule of Law, International Law and many other Freedoms.

What I think it comes down to for the US and Sweden is whether they'll be willing to face withering international criticism in order to serve the demands of the US - because let's face it both Sweden and the UK are American pawns in this game - and my guess (not my hope) is that they are. Blighty will I think, but perhaps Sweden won't?

It will certainly be worth diarising 12 noon today London time to see what Assange decided.

[David Guyatt]

The Blighty government has announced it will arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy and deport him to Sweden. So their knee is bowed. Over to Sweden now...

[Magda Hassan]

Interestingly the lone dissenting voice on the UN panel was from Ukrainian. Make of that what you will. I expect his salary was being paid by Ambassador Pyatt.

[Peter Lemkin]

So, as far as I can see, Assange 'won', but is still trapped in the Embassy...and the UK will arrest him if he steps outside.....what Sweden will do is anyone's guess, but they are MUCH more of a client state of the USA than most think! I don't expect Sweden to weigh in on what it will do.....so it is staus quo except for a virtual victory for Assange.
Score: Justice and Law - zero; injustice of power - 10