This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/what-happen-julian-assange-detention-ruling-officially-announced
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Julian Assange Q&A: what now for the WikiLeaks founder? | Julian Assange Q&A: what now for the WikiLeaks founder? |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| What has the United Nations said about Julian Assange? | What has the United Nations said about Julian Assange? |
| A specialist body based in Geneva, the UN working group on arbitrary detention (UNWGAD) has published its long-awaited report on complaints by Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, that he is effectively being detained illegally in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden for alleged sex offences; he has not been charged. | A specialist body based in Geneva, the UN working group on arbitrary detention (UNWGAD) has published its long-awaited report on complaints by Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, that he is effectively being detained illegally in the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden for alleged sex offences; he has not been charged. |
| Why has the UN decided that Assange is subject to ‘arbitrary detention’? | Why has the UN decided that Assange is subject to ‘arbitrary detention’? |
| Much of the report focuses on criticism of the Swedish prosecutor’s failure to question Assange in the UK and give the Australian an opportunity to provide a full statement to investigating officers. The UNWGAD finding says that the methods used in the protracted criminal investigation, which has been going on since 2010, are disproportionate. | Much of the report focuses on criticism of the Swedish prosecutor’s failure to question Assange in the UK and give the Australian an opportunity to provide a full statement to investigating officers. The UNWGAD finding says that the methods used in the protracted criminal investigation, which has been going on since 2010, are disproportionate. |
| Who was on the UN panel and how did it work? | Who was on the UN panel and how did it work? |
| The chair and rapporteur of the UN working group on arbitrary detention is a South Korean academic, Seong-Phil Hong, who has worked as a conciliator for the World Bank and also dealt with North Korean human rights and the issue of enforced sexual slavery during the second world war. The other members of the panel are from Mexico, Benin, Australia and Ukraine. | The chair and rapporteur of the UN working group on arbitrary detention is a South Korean academic, Seong-Phil Hong, who has worked as a conciliator for the World Bank and also dealt with North Korean human rights and the issue of enforced sexual slavery during the second world war. The other members of the panel are from Mexico, Benin, Australia and Ukraine. |
| The Australian member of the panel recused herself from the decision because Assange is an Australian citizen. The panel is authorised to investigate complaints from individuals as well as carrying out reports on whether countries are adhering to international legal obligations on detention. | |
| Among its recent high-profile decisions was one last autumn, which concluded that Mohammed Nasheed, the former president of the Maldives, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison after being found guilty of terrorism, did not receive a fair trial. | Among its recent high-profile decisions was one last autumn, which concluded that Mohammed Nasheed, the former president of the Maldives, who was sentenced to 13 years in prison after being found guilty of terrorism, did not receive a fair trial. |
| Was it a unanimous decision? | Was it a unanimous decision? |
| Unusually, the five-member UN panel failed to agree among themselves. As well as the Australian member who stood down, another member, the Ukrainian legal academic Vladimir Tochilovsky, produced a dissenting report in which he concluded that Assange was a “self-confined” fugitive. He added: “Assange fled [police] bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest.” | Unusually, the five-member UN panel failed to agree among themselves. As well as the Australian member who stood down, another member, the Ukrainian legal academic Vladimir Tochilovsky, produced a dissenting report in which he concluded that Assange was a “self-confined” fugitive. He added: “Assange fled [police] bail in June 2012 and since then stays at the premises of the embassy using them as a safe haven to evade arrest.” |
| What will be the effect of the report? | What will be the effect of the report? |
| Both the UK and Swedish governments have said they will not comply with the UNWGAD finding because it interferes with the legitimate workings of the European arrest warrant that Assange is circumventing by remaining inside the Ecuadorian embassy. “This changes nothing,” the UK government responded. “We completely reject any claim that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention.” | |
| How embarrassing is this for the UK? | How embarrassing is this for the UK? |
| Even though both Sweden and the UK intend to ignore the report, it is nonetheless highly embarrassing for two active upholders of the UN and the international rule of law to be subjected to such harsh criticism by such an influential UN body. It sets an undesirable precedent for other states to defy UN decisions. | Even though both Sweden and the UK intend to ignore the report, it is nonetheless highly embarrassing for two active upholders of the UN and the international rule of law to be subjected to such harsh criticism by such an influential UN body. It sets an undesirable precedent for other states to defy UN decisions. |
| What do other international lawyers think of the development? | |
| Mark Ellis, executive director of the London-based International Bar Association, said: “The information seems to suggest that the UN panel has found in Assange’s favour. That decision would seem to contradict a fairly extensive legal process both in the UK and in Sweden. It’s important to maintain adherence to rule of law principles and ensure that individuals have to abide by legal rulings. It’s surprising to think that Assange could be exempted from those principles. The ruling by the UN panel is not binding on British law. | |
| “It would, however, provide Assange with support for his claim that he should not be extradited. I’m sure the UK is trying to figure a way out. It would be difficult for me to think that there should be an exception [from the European arrest warrant] for this case.” | “It would, however, provide Assange with support for his claim that he should not be extradited. I’m sure the UK is trying to figure a way out. It would be difficult for me to think that there should be an exception [from the European arrest warrant] for this case.” |
| Kirsty Brimelow QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, an expert in international law tribunals, said: “A finding by UNWGAD against the UK is not binding. It has no enforcement power. However, a finding that the UK has acted in a way which is inconsistent with relevant international standards should not be ignored by the UK. The UK should not act contrary to international law.” | Kirsty Brimelow QC, of Doughty Street Chambers, an expert in international law tribunals, said: “A finding by UNWGAD against the UK is not binding. It has no enforcement power. However, a finding that the UK has acted in a way which is inconsistent with relevant international standards should not be ignored by the UK. The UK should not act contrary to international law.” |