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/live/2016/feb/05/julian-assange-is-being-arbitrarily-detained-un-panel-finds-live-updates
The article has changed 18 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Julian Assange: UK to contest UN panel finding over ‘arbitrary detention’ – live updates | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| 9.19am GMT | |
| 09:19 | |
| Sweden rejects panel's finding | |
| The Swedish governemnt has also rejected the panel’s finding. In a statement posted by BuzzFeed’s James Ball, it said: | |
| “Mr Assange has chosen, voluntarily, to stay at the Ecuadorian Embassy and Swedish authorities have not control over his decision to stay there. Mr Assange is free to leave the Embassy at at any point. Thus, he is not being deprived of his liberty due to any decision or action taken by the Swedish authorities. The government there refutes the opinion of the working group.” | |
| Sweden rejects the opinion of the UN panel on Assange's detention – below quote is from their ambassador to the UN pic.twitter.com/zs0yRkCSWs | |
| 9.01am GMT | |
| 09:01 | |
| UK government to contest finding | |
| The UK government has confirmed that it will formally contest the opinion of the UN panel. | |
| In a statement the Foreign Office said: | |
| “This changes nothing. We completely reject any claim that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention. The UK has already made clear to the UN that we will formally contest the working group’s opinion. | |
| “Julian Assange has never been arbitrarily detained by the UK. The opinion of the UN Working Group ignores the facts and the well-recognised protections of the British legal system. He 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 UK continues to have a legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden. As the UK is not a party to the Caracas Convention, we do not recognise ‘diplomatic asylum’. | |
| “We are deeply frustrated that this unacceptable situation is still being allowed to continue. Ecuador must engage with Sweden in good faith to bring it to an end. Americas Minister Hugo Swire made this clear to the Ecuadorean Ambassador in November, and we continue to raise the matter in Quito.” | |
| Updated | |
| at 9.11am GMT | |
| 8.59am GMT | |
| 08:59 | |
| James Ball, a former Wikileaks and Guardian staffer now at Buzzfeed, claims that the panel essentially ruled that Assange’s detention was “arbitrary” because of the time taken over his extradition case. | |
| While neglecting to mention the reason for delay was a series of appeals Assange made (and was granted) up to supreme court | |
| Lesson of this seems to be: delay an investigation into you long enough and the UN will find in your favour, because of that delay | |
| 8.54am GMT | |
| 08:54 | |
| Free speech campaigners have been quick to welcome the UN panel’s finding. | |
| Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said: | |
| “In light of this decision, it’s clear that any criminal charges against Mr. Assange in connection with Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. Indeed, even the prolonged criminal investigation of Wikileaks itself has had a profound chilling effect. The Justice Department should end that investigation and make clear that no publisher will ever be prosecuted for the act of journalism.” | |
| 8.50am GMT | |
| 08:50 | |
| Owen Bowcott | |
| In its statement, the committee said that one of its members, Leigh Toomey, an Australian, had declined to take part in the inquiry because she is an Australian citizen, Owen Bowcott points out | |
| One of the other members had disagreed with the finding. | |
| The statement said: “Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group.” | |
| Only three of the five member panel therefore supported the finding against the UK and Sweden. | |
| 8.46am GMT | |
| 08:46 | |
| Assange is due to give a press conference at noon to respond to the panel’s findings. | |
| #Assange press conference (via Skype) with his lawyers @frontlineclub at 12pm following UN decision on arbitrary detention. | |
| 8.45am GMT | |
| 08:45 | |
| The Guardian’s legal affairs editor Owen Bowcott points out that the UNWGAD findings have no binding impact on UK law and cannot overrule the court-sanctioned procedure for removing Assange, under a European arrest warrant, to face justice in Scandinavia. | |
| But in a Facebook video the UN’s Christophe Peschoux argues that the panels decisions are “indirectly but still legally binding on the relevant authorities”. | |
| 8.33am GMT | 8.33am GMT |
| 08:33 | 08:33 |
| Welcome to live coverage of the aftermath of a UN panel’s call on the Swedish and British authorities to end Julian Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”. | Welcome to live coverage of the aftermath of a UN panel’s call on the Swedish and British authorities to end Julian Assange’s “deprivation of liberty”. |
| Here’s the full text of a statement by the UN’s working group on arbitrary detention. | Here’s the full text of a statement by the UN’s working group on arbitrary detention. |
| On 4 December 2015, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted Opinion No. 54/2015, in which it considered that Mr. Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group recognized that Mr. Assange is entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation. The application was filed with the Working Group in September 2014. The Opinion 54/2015 was sent to the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 January 2016 in accordance with the Working Group’s Methods of Work. | On 4 December 2015, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted Opinion No. 54/2015, in which it considered that Mr. Julian Assange was arbitrarily detained by the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that opinion, the Working Group recognized that Mr. Assange is entitled to his freedom of movement and to compensation. The application was filed with the Working Group in September 2014. The Opinion 54/2015 was sent to the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 January 2016 in accordance with the Working Group’s Methods of Work. |
| Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group. | Given that Mr. Assange is an Australian citizen, one of the members of the Working Group who shares his nationality recused herself from participating in the deliberations. Another member of the Working Group disagreed with the position of the majority and considered that the situation of Mr. Assange is not one of detention and therefore falls outside the mandate of the Working Group. |
| In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest in the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange requested the Republic of Ecuador to grant him refugee status at its Embassy in London. The Republic of Ecuador granted asylum because of Mr. Assange’s fear that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be further extradited to the United States where he would face serious criminal charges for the peaceful exercise of his freedoms. Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police. | In mid-2010, a Swedish Prosecutor commenced an investigation against Mr. Assange based on allegations of sexual misconduct. On 7 December 2010, pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued at the request of the Swedish Prosecutor, Mr. Assange was detained in Wandsworth Prison for 10 days in isolation. Thereafter, he was subjected to house arrest for 550 days. While under house arrest in the United Kingdom, Mr. Assange requested the Republic of Ecuador to grant him refugee status at its Embassy in London. The Republic of Ecuador granted asylum because of Mr. Assange’s fear that if he was extradited to Sweden, he would be further extradited to the United States where he would face serious criminal charges for the peaceful exercise of his freedoms. Since August 2012, Mr. Assange has not been able to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy and is subject to extensive surveillance by the British police. |
| The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. The Working Group found that this detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, and falls within category III as defined in its Methods of Work. | The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange. The Working Group found that this detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, and falls within category III as defined in its Methods of Work. |
| The Working Group therefore requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation. | The Working Group therefore requested Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner, and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention. The Working Group also considered that the detention should be brought to an end and that Mr. Assange should be afforded the right to compensation. |
| Assange is expected to demand that Sweden and the UK lift any threat of arrest to allow him to walk free from Ecuador’s embassy in London. | Assange is expected to demand that Sweden and the UK lift any threat of arrest to allow him to walk free from Ecuador’s embassy in London. |
| Assange has not set foot outside the cramped west London embassy building since June 2012, when he sought asylum from Ecuador in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden. The Australian is wanted for questioning over an allegation of rape dating to 2010, which he denies. | Assange has not set foot outside the cramped west London embassy building since June 2012, when he sought asylum from Ecuador in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden. The Australian is wanted for questioning over an allegation of rape dating to 2010, which he denies. |
| Christophe Peschoux from the UN said the panel’s decisions were legally binding. | Christophe Peschoux from the UN said the panel’s decisions were legally binding. |
| Updated | Updated |
| at 8.38am GMT | at 8.38am GMT |